Movies thread

[GenesisOne]

Oh, yeah?

"Oh bliss! Bliss and heaven! Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh. It was like a bird of rarest-spun heaven metal or like silvery wine flowing in a spaceship, gravity all nonsense now. As I slooshied, I knew such lovely pictures!"

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

Surrogates = not that great. 6/10.  It was almost... a little... well, campy.  The writing was pretty shotty.

But not a bad film. Better than some. Just not as good as I thought it would be.

[Radical Pan]

Anyone here's an independent and international movies fan? The other day I was on the store in front of my house, and they had this movie, Dancer in the Dark, on discount, Björk starred it, and since I love that crazy woman, I decided to buy the DVD. MY GOSH, it's one of the best purchases I've done lately, what an incredible movie, the plot, the twists, the music! (Yeah, I love her sick sounds). I regret that I didn't see it sooner, but now I understand how it won so many awards. I totally feel like looking other movies by Lars von Trier 

I want to see Final Destination 4 on the theatres, but they only have it with those crappy 3D glasses, and since I live in Latin America, it's not worth wasting 7 bucks to use 3D glasses on shitty screens <_< (regular movie tickets costs $3.90) I'll have to wait until it pops up on Blockbuster.

[Boo the Gentleman Caller]

I do!  I do!

Although I'm sort of "indied" out because I worked at an independent film festival this weekend.  It sort of burnt me out for a few weeks, hahaha...

[ZaichikArky]

I'm on this Audrey Hepburn craze right now, and I watched "Breakfast at Tiffany's" for the first time. I'm reading a biography about her, and I love Audrey so much. I made a LJ UI to commemorate:



The party scene from Tiffany's has got to be one of the most hilarious scenes ever. Everything about that movie was awesome. 10/10.

Next, I need to watch "Roman Holiday". It was her first Hollywood movie. I remember watching the end of it one day, and that was what got me more excited about Audrey Hepburn in the first place.

I also watched "The Ascent" because I randomly found it recorded on the TV at home and I got bored of watching all the recorded Jon and Kate episodes I missed. "The Ascent" is this early 70s Russian WWII movie. It was unusual for a WWII movie, and I've only really seen a handful of Russian movies. This one was very effective in its dialogue and it really shows the ugliness of the human condition during wartime. The director died a couple years later while she was shooting her next movie. Quite a tragedy, because "The Ascent" is largely considered to be her best movie. My only real complaint is that the movie was a bit too slow at times. 7/10

The last movie I watched lately was this anime movie by that director of "Ghost in the Shell" called "The Skycrawlers". It was recommended to me, but I didn't know that it was made by the same director. It took a year for me to finish downloading it. I didn't really like the movie. It was too slow and philosophical. I didn't even understand what was going on until I read the short wiki article about it, then it pissed me off. I wouldn't recommend it unless you like "Ghost in the Shell" and philosophical, thoughtful movies. I give it 6/10.

[GenesisOne]

The other night, I finally got to see "Akira" in the original Japanese.

Epic story, very dark tones, very dystopian.  Words can't express my awe over how much effort went into the estimated 160,000 cels for the film stock.

Now I know why it's called the 'holy grail' of anime.

[Radical_Dreamer]

Per a long term request of the girlfriend, yesterday was largely spent marathoning the Pirates of Caribbean movies. They have that common movie trilogy syndrome of the first movie being strong enough to stand on its own, and then the second and third being an arc in of themselves.

This was my second time watching these films, so I took a more critical eye this time. The first movie is inconsistent in its portrayal of the state of the cursed crew. Barbosa says they can't feel, but the crew to react to painful stimulus throughout the film. In the third film they seem to forget William witnessing Elizabeth kissing Jack at the end of the second film, and I found their relationship unbelievable. Both know they can't trust the other, and yet behave throughout as though they can. There also seemed to be an anti-deregulation subtext to the second and third films. I'm not sure how I feel about that in the context of these films.

This is not to say I didn't enjoy the films. They're a lot of fun, but I find that over all, each is better than the one that follows it. The third one still gains points with me, however, for Davy Jones killing Beckett's man with his beard.

[MsBlack]

Per a long term request of the girlfriend, yesterday was largely spent marathoning the Pirates of Caribbean movies. They have that common movie trilogy syndrome of the first movie being strong enough to stand on its own, and then the second and third being an arc in of themselves.

In my experience, that's not limited to films. I don't think that the first instalment set-up then mostly the second and third covering the main arc is necessarily a bad thing. There's something to be said for having a first instalment that's less important in the main arc to build up the setting and characters and set the scene, as opposed to diving right into the main storyline.

That's not to say PotC did it well, of course. I'd have to watch 'em again myself to say.

[GenesisOne]

What got me was in the third film was the climax after the maelstrom dissipated when Lord Beckett's ship gets attacked from both sides. 

He's an excellent bad guy, not a low-watt bulb, but when his ship is getting blasted every which way, he freezes and doesn't give the order to return fire.

Why would he do that!?  His ship is turning into flying toothpicks (unbelievable that every single splinter and cannon ball misses him) while he mutters that "It's good for business." He stares at the horizon like he's stoned - and he does NOTHING.

He's always been Mr. Ruthless Evil Quick-Decision Maker.  Suddenly, he's Caspar Milquetoast on Nembutal. 

As a screenwriter who stresses character above story, this is a stupid screenwriting mistake: making your character do something because you make them (a.k.a. making your character do something stupid in order to advance the story).

This leads me to an interesting question: What are some of the stupidest character blunders that you've seen in a movie (or TV show or video game) to date?

[Radical_Dreamer]

In my experience, that's not limited to films. I don't think that the first instalment set-up then mostly the second and third covering the main arc is necessarily a bad thing. There's something to be said for having a first instalment that's less important in the main arc to build up the setting and characters and set the scene, as opposed to diving right into the main storyline.

That's not to say PotC did it well, of course. I'd have to watch 'em again myself to say.

Oh, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. Star Wars does the same trick, but I think it does it better. At the end of Episode IV, the Rebels strike a huge blow to the Empire, but the Empire is still largely in control of the galaxy, Han still has his unresolved business with Jabba, and Luke has yet to really begin his Jedi training. That's set up in Episode IV.

Now look at the end of Curse of the Black Pearl. Norrington is going to be chasing after Jack, and Elizabeth and Will are going to get married. Dead Man's Chest starts out by wiping out the wedding plans, and explaining that the Norrington chasing Jack storyline has been entirely resolved off camera. The 2nd and 3rd Pirates movies felt, at least to me, like they weren't so much building on the established characters and story as they were using the previous film as a backdrop in which to tell their own story, previous context be damned.

[Romana]

Just saw Sherlock Holmes. It was really awesome.

[GenesisOne]

Just saw Sherlock Holmes. It was really awesome.

I saw it, too.  Being an amateur magician, I liked how he explained those events that seemed to be paranormal at first, but then turned out to be elaborately-constructed illusions.

This thread needs more posts, considering how seeing movies isn't limited to theaters.  Any movie anyone has seen is worth mentioning and sharing feelings about in here.

[Dapifer]

I wanted to catch that one, but in the trailers it just comes off as a James Bond movie for some reason... "the name is Holmes, Sherlock Holmes" comes to mind.

But I still plan to watch it, eventually =P

[KebreI]

I just finish Tideland, fuck...

[V_Translanka]

I wanted to catch that one, but in the trailers it just comes off as a James Bond movie for some reason... "the name is Holmes, Sherlock Holmes" comes to mind.

But I still plan to watch it, eventually =P

Yeah, I feel similar...having read the series of short stories (& the novellas) and becoming a Sherlockian I can't help but think that the movie doesn't really follow the source material so much as the perception of the material (i.e.: "Elementary, my dear Watson!", which Holmes never says in the books)...Doyle didn't even like the source all that much to begin with, so I can only imagine what he'd think if he were alive today and there was a Hollywood version of it now while most of his other work (besides a rather consistently retooled Land of the Lost) continues to go mostly unnoticed (by me too)...>_>