Author Topic: Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread (Read 5152811 times)

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #2040 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:07:26 PM »

Quote from: Bebpo on November 16, 2009, 04:57:09 PM

I wouldn't say "wasted". I enjoyed him more in GI JOE than 500 days...

Oh come on. what?

Solo needs to post his 500 Days of Summer review itt

BobFromPikeCreek · « **Reply #2041 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:14:15 PM »

500 Days of Summer is excellent.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #2042 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:17:03 PM »

It really was. Next to Up, it's the best movie I've seen this year.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

still haven't seen Moon

[close]

Kestastrophe · « **Reply #2043 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:20:26 PM »

some netflix streaming today:

The Proposition-Pretty good western flick set in Australia. I always enjoy Guy Pearce, but he was upstaged by Ray Winstone in this one.

Seven Pounds-Will Smith is a pretty good actor, in case you didn't notice already. I enjoyed the movie, but it was kind of pretentious.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2044 on:** November 16, 2009, 06:33:25 PM »

I saw you watching Seven Pounds earlier, and I was wondering why you were doing that instead of playing BORDERLANDS or MODERN WARFARE 2

Bebpo · « **Reply #2045 on:** November 16, 2009, 09:39:11 PM »

500 days of summer is good, but he doesn't give a particularly great performance. He's just kinda "I'm a dork, ho ho ho" and it's not even one of those oscar-worthy mentally distinguished mentally-challenged performances like rain man or anything, it's just a very dull peformance. He's capable of so much more when he puts his all into character acting like in Brick, The Lookout, or yes, GI JOE.

His GI JOE performance is not quite Ledger Joker, but pretty damn high up there. He nails the voice and mannerisms incredibly well. I'm excited for GI JOE 2 just to see more of him in that role.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #2046 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:35:10 PM »

You've gotta be fucking kidding me

Barry Egan · « **Reply #2047 on:** November 16, 2009, 10:41:18 PM »

cute movie

Kestastrophe · « **Reply #2048 on:** November 17, 2009, 11:20:06 AM »

Quote from: Willco on November 16, 2009, 06:33:25 PM

I saw you watching Seven Pounds earlier, and I was wondering why you were doing that instead of playing BORDERLANDS or MODERN WARFARE 2

I can study and watch movies at the same time.

Mr. Gundam · « **Reply #2049 on:** November 21, 2009, 01:03:56 PM »

I saw Precious last night at one of our beautiful art house theaters in Seattle. A few thoughts.

1. Yes, it's a powerful film. I'm sure you'll hear lots of people saying that.
2. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT BRING YOUR SMALL CHILDREN TO THIS FILM.
3. THIS MOVIE IS NOT A COMEDY. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?

Himu · « **Reply #2050 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:18:45 AM »

Saw Star Trek and GI Joe tonight. Both awesome.

I want a sequel to Star Trek right now.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2051 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:22:27 AM »

G.I. Joe

Star Trek $:-\$

What an awful summer for blockbusters.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #2052 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:26:46 AM »

Quote from: Willco on November 22, 2009, 01:22:27 AM

G.I. Joe
Star Trek $:-\$

What an awful summer for blockbusters.

Star Trek was fun, and had some good performances, but there was so much about it that could have been handled much better. It was an improvement over T4 at least.

Plus, the phrase

spoiler (click to show/hide)

"We'll blow yo planet up!"

[close]

kept ringing through my head throughout the entire movie.

Don Flamenco · « **Reply #2053 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:30:39 AM »

Just watched Following. Christopher Nolan film from 1998. It's pretty awesome and shares some stuff in common with Memento-- noir, asynchronous, lots of foreshadowing without context that becomes clear later on. It's short at 70 minutes and extremely well edited. I'm trying to praise it without giving anything away. Really awesome "fuuuuuuuuuck" ending. I expected an interesting character study film and ended up getting an awesome suspense film in a similar vein to Usual Suspects.

I just randomly saw it on Netflix 360 today and decided to watch it.

Speaking of which, is anyone else addicted to sitting there and flipping through box covers?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2054 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:35:24 AM »

Star Trek was mediocre. The cast is great and the performance are great, but the whole thing is a shallow exercise in moving attractive twenty-somethings to action set piece to action set piece. The crew is promoted too rapidly, there is no emotional weight, the villain blows, lazy writing, bad cinematography, etc.

Not a big fan.

cool breeze · « **Reply #2055 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:41:49 AM »

Star Trek was enjoying during and a few hours after, then I forgot about it the next day.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #2056 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:43:48 AM »

Quote from: Willco on November 22, 2009, 01:35:24 AM

The crew is promoted too rapidly

Yeah, it felt like they really wanted to get everyone into their proper roles as quickly as possible, instead of naturally building up to it.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2057 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:50:19 AM »

The whole thing is contrived. It is pretty lazy.

The best thing about Star Trek is that is totally disposable, and not completely insulting.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2058 on:** November 22, 2009, 01:53:57 AM »

you saying TF>Star Trek?

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2059 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:01:52 AM »

Actually, I think they're about the same. Star Trek is significantly better than Revenge of the Fallen, though.

I'd like to point out that both have the same writers, Maurice.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2060 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:07:47 AM »

I don't care about the writers, TF is a horrible movie. I haven't seen Star Trek and don't want to...just wanted to get you on record.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2061 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:09:04 AM »

Also, the point of reference is different. Transformers is a live-action film based on an animated commercial created by a company to sell toys.

Star Trek was a legitimately interesting piece of science-fiction created by a man ahead of his time, often touching on social issues, and was at its best when it paired compelling narratives with fantastic science-fiction.

I don't necessarily disagree about rebooting the franchise, and Abrams certainly proved me wrong in casting a likable crew that doesn't feel overshadowed by the ghosts of Nimoy and Shatner. Erasing years of convoluted continuity is a good thing, and creating new stories for a new generation is normal, but why do we need to abandon smart writing and real substance?

I just cannot support throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2062 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:11:31 AM »

I don't think you can really call Transformers a horrible movie, because there are a lot of horrible movies, and Transformers isn't even in the same ballpark.

You can call it a not-very-good movie or a mediocre movie or a movie with lazy writing (like Star Trek), but horrible? People need to differentiate between truly, bad movies and movies they simply do not enjoy.

If you think Transformers is horrible, I will be happy to recommend some films to you!

Mandark · « **Reply #2063 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:15:40 AM »

We're getting into semantics, but I think something can be horrible even when there's stuff that's significantly worse.

Transformers can't touch most of the MST3K source movies, but it was seriously bad on many levels.

Star Trek was a shallow, but genial and well-executed action movie like the Edward Norton Hulk.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2064 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:17:12 AM »

TF is a horrible movie, there's no redeeming value to it. And I'm someone who rarely, rarely hates movies. Granted I was a huge Transformers fan growing up but none of my complaints have to do with how they butchered the franchise. I didn't watch it expecting them to stay true to a cartoon I watched more than a decade ago. It's an action movie with unwatchable action.

I happen to hate Star Trek in general (although I thought Generations was alright) so I'm in no hurry to see the sexed up, modern version.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2065 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:17:25 AM »

I don't think Star Trek is necessarily a good action film, and certainly no better than Transformers. I put them on the same level.

On a technical level, Star Trek is a poorly shot film.

Mandark · « **Reply #2066 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:19:56 AM »

No no no. Transformers is bad. If I had an abacus I could prove it mathematically.

edit: I will say ST is a lot better if you expect a popcorn flick than if you expect a ST movie.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2067 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:23:50 AM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on November 22, 2009, 02:17:12 AM

TF is a horrible movie, there's no redeeming value to it. And I'm someone who rarely, rarely hates movies.

Disagree. The effects were ace, it has only one real lull, some great character moments and some pretty neat camera work. Orci and Kurtzman do character moments pretty well, just nothing else.

Star Trek is just as 'good' or 'bad' of a popcorn flick as Transformers, Mandark. As a popcorn flick, it's pretty bad. Transformers at least had the bullet point of robots fighting robots. It's only real edge over Transformers, as far as I can tell, is the running time. It's brisk and doesn't drag on too long (a legitimate complaint for both the original Transformers and its sequel).

The camera work and cinematography is significantly worse than Transformers, and it may actually have a dumber plot.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2068 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:29:31 AM »

The problem with the effects is that the art design is bad; same problem I have with Avatar. Each action scene is essentially crumbled up metal crashing into each other. None of them are particularly interesting or exciting. The "character moments" don't stand out because it feels like you've seen them in previous summer blockbuster flicks. I've liked Shia ever since I started watching Even Steven religiously but even his act gets tired half way through the movie. And Megan Fox...blah.

Hearing some of the voices from the cartoon is definitely cool, but that's about it for me.

Mandark · « **Reply #2069 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:33:47 AM »

"Great character moments"!?

I swear, every time you post about Transformers I wonder if you have access to some top-secret version of the film nobody else has seen.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2070 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:35:05 AM »

Just admit it, Federman- you're predisposed to liking crappy 80's cartoon nostalgia mated with Baytastic 'asplosions. Transformers is all kinds of worse than Star Trek.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2071 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:35:40 AM »

I agree outside of a handful of Transformers, the character design is questionable, but the actual effects are pretty incredible. There are also a handful of well executed action sequences that are pretty awesome.

Star Trek has the stronger cast, but I don't think anyone in Transformers is pretty bad. Strike that. Except Jon Voight.

I can't really recall a lot of character moments that involved a teenage boy getting a talking, robotic car for his Super Sweet 16 in many other summer blockbuster flicks. Unfortunately I agree with Cheebs, that when it is really a story about a boy and his car, it is pretty entertaining. It's only when it switches gears that it becomes purely a reference track for home theater systems.

... Any sequel to Star Trek needs a solid story, or this cast will go to waste. Someone also needs to let J.J. Abrams know that he's no longer shooting for television, he can actually pull the camera out. And the DP needs to be fired.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2072 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:42:47 AM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on November 22, 2009, 02:35:05 AM

Just admit it, Federman- you're predisposed to liking crappy 80's cartoon nostalgia mated with Baytastic 'asplosions.

Except I'm not really nostalgic for 80s cartoons. I passionately dislike G.I. Joe. I do enjoy my Michael Bay explosions, though.

I've never hid the fact that a lot of my enjoyment hinges on visceral action scenes and giant robots. I don't think on an objective level that it is a very good film, but a bad film? Please.

It's a mediocre film, but this is typical iconocasm and I wouldn't expect less from the Internet.

Quote

Transformers is all kinds of worse than Star Trek.

Definitely not. Same writers. Same studio. Director is a disciple of Bay. They share some crew. It has poor camera work. The cinematography is a lot worse.

It's shorter, and the cast is better. And you swap Bay's immature childish humor for Abrams' constantly winking at the audience.

The plot to Star Trek is probably worse. And some of the Transformers have better character development than Star Trek characters.

They're about the same.

I've

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2073 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:44:18 AM »

ban willco

Mandark · « **Reply #2074 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:45:06 AM »

Okay, you definitely saw a different movie than the one that was in general release.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2075 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:45:40 AM »

Quote from: Green Shinobi on November 22, 2009, 02:38:21 AM

Bull.Shit.

John Turturro was abysmal, the fat black guy was a complete waste of space, and his hot hacker friend was utterly pointless except for the fact that she was hot. I feel bad for the trees they cut down to write those characters into the screenplay.

So your complaint, other than a bad performance by Turturro (which is debatable - he was chewing scenery no doubt, but may have been the best part of the film) is that Transformers includes characters with no development.

... versus Star Trek?

Outside of Spock, none of the characters really have an arc. None of them really achieve anything. The antagonist is completely pointless, as is the vast majority of the characters on the Enterprise.

Transformers at least had the decency to not take itself seriously, whereas Star Trek not only tries to play it straight, but makes completely perplexing storytelling decisions - like giving Kirk no development whatsoever.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #2076 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:50:02 AM »

Wow, now I have to see Star Trek. It's very hard for me to think it's as bad as Transformers.

On an anecdotal note, the vast majority of my friends thought Star Trek was meh to bad...while saying TF2 was cool :'(

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2077 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:54:44 AM »

Quote from: Mandark on November 22, 2009, 02:45:06 AM

Okay, you definitely saw a different movie than the one that was in general release.

No, I saw the same film Roger Ebert did.

Look, both films share a lot of the same creative talent or use talent from the same tree - and were greenlit by the same studio. They're both mediocre. The difference is that one has reached such heightened levels of popularity that it is bound to disappoint on that basis alone, and the other exceeded expectations by not being a complete trainwreck.

Both suffer from massive failures in the screen writing process, have technical issues (character design for Transformers, lighting/camera work for Star Trek) and are nothing more than reference tracks for home theater systems at the end of the day.

Star Trek, unlike Transformers, could be retroactively improved with decent sequels, whereas Michael Bay has already shit the bed with his jive talkin' robots.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2078 on:** November 22, 2009, 02:57:20 AM »

Quote from: Phoenix Dark on November 22, 2009, 02:50:02 AM

Wow, now I have to see Star Trek. It's very hard for me to think it's as bad as Transformers.

And I will tell you, neither are bad. They're just mediocre. There are far worse summer popcorn flicks out there, within the same year no less!

Quote

On an anecdotal note, the vast majority of my friends thought Star Trek was meh to bad...while saying TF2 was cool :'(

Revenge of the Fallen was genuinely bad.

Mandark · « **Reply #2079 on:** November 22, 2009, 03:10:08 AM »

Ebert also declared Juno the best movie of the year.

Quote from: Willco on November 22, 2009, 02:45:40 AM

Transformers at least had the decency to not take itself seriously, whereas Star Trek not only tries to play it straight, but makes completely perplexing storytelling decisions - like giving Kirk no development whatsoever.

You're allowed to like the dramatic, slow-mo shots of Our Brave Troops readying to fight the Decepticons, but no way is that "not taking itself seriously".

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2080 on:** November 22, 2009, 03:15:08 AM »

I don't think his Pulitzer or body of work is invalidated by his admiration of Diablo Cody's turgid screenplay. We're all allowed to make mistakes. Nor would I ask everyone to base their own personal opinions off of Ebert's.

Quote from: Mandark

You're allowed to like the dramatic, slow-mo shots of Our Brave Troops readying to fight the Decepticons, but no way is that "not taking itself seriously".

How is that even taking itself seriously? You're confusing Bay-manufactured melodrama with somberness.

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #2081 on:** November 22, 2009, 03:15:27 AM »

Black Dynamite

Fecking awesome! Will probably make my best of list for 2009, it was seriously that freaking good. Not since Shaun of the Dead has there been such a spot on, loving and accurate genre spoof/recreation, it functions as a love letter to a disreputable genre and as a very, very good entry in it. The script was fantastic, Black Dynamite's recollection of his nightmarish Vietnam experience being a particular highlight. Its got tons of film geek cred in all the little details it gets right, and it just friggin works as a smart-dumb comedy. I got nothing but love for this movie.

***1/2

edit: um, oh yeah, uh, Transformers blows.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2082 on:** November 22, 2009, 03:22:51 AM »

Also, if you want to talk about a truly bad film, one with no redeeming qualities, I saw Land of the Lost tonight. It was probably the most painfully unfunny Will Ferrell experience thus far.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2083 on:** November 22, 2009, 05:21:37 AM »

Quote from: Willco on November 22, 2009, 03:22:51 AM

Also, if you want to talk about a truly bad film, one with no redeeming qualities, I saw Land of the Lost tonight. It was probably the most painfully unfunny Will Ferrell experience thus far.

Not even Danny McBride and the babetastic Anne Friel could partially redeem it? Man it must suuuuuuck.

hyperzone- Can't wait to see Black Dynamite. Did it have any overt nods to the Dolemite flicks?

Himu · « **Reply #2084 on:** November 22, 2009, 09:34:42 AM »

Star Trek is in no way worse than TF. I enjoyed it because of the pacing and action. I'm not a big Star Trek fan in general, so I was surprised.

As for GI Joe, I liked it for similar reasons: cg and action.

Himu · « **Reply #2085 on:** November 22, 2009, 09:44:19 AM »

Quote from: Willco on November 22, 2009, 01:22:27 AM

G.I. Joe
Star Trek $:-\$

What an awful summer for blockbusters.

I thought GI Joe was awesome.

Albeit, in the:

"Hot damn look at that cg, they don't give a shit how cartoony they're making this!"

"Woah, look at those titties!"

"Hahaha, this story is distinguished mentally-challenged. That kid is trying to kill Snake Eyes just because he stole some food?!"

"So this guy had the ability to make the missiles, mass produce the missiles, and SELL the missiles but he couldn't weaponize the missiles? He HAD to go to a civilian lab in France in order to use them?"

sense.

HyperZoneWasAwesome · « **Reply #2086 on:** November 22, 2009, 10:14:21 AM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on November 22, 2009, 05:21:37 AM

hyperzone- Can't wait to see Black Dynamite. Did it have any overt nods to the Dolemite flicks?

oh yeah, and its very, very funny.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2087 on:** November 22, 2009, 10:30:06 AM »

Quote from: The Card Cheat on November 22, 2009, 05:21:37 AM

Not even Danny McBride and the babetastic Anne Friel could partially redeem it? Man it must suuuuuuck.

McBride is the only redeeming thing about it.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #2088 on:** November 22, 2009, 10:38:46 AM »

Quote from: Willco on November 22, 2009, 10:30:06 AM

Quote from: The Card Cheat on November 22, 2009, 05:21:37 AM
Not even Danny McBride and the babetastic Anne Friel could partially redeem it? Man it must suuuuuuck.

McBride is the only redeeming thing about it.

LIES

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #2089 on:** November 22, 2009, 11:15:41 AM »

She doesn't get naked or anything. Not even bra and underwear.

... Also, she has this contrived romance plot with Ferrell that is totally distinguished mentally-challenged. The chemistry between them is like the chemistry between Phoenix Dark and any woman.

McBride has a few great lines, but overall, it is a truly bad film. It was the longest 90 minutes ever.

Olivia Wilde Homo · « **Reply #2090 on:** November 22, 2009, 11:43:31 AM »

Ferrell is a one trick pony. Good for him that he was able to parlay that into a $20 million/movie career but he's been unfunny for almost a decade now.

Mr. Gundam · « **Reply #2091 on:** November 22, 2009, 11:53:28 AM »

Quote from: HyperZoneWasAwesome on November 22, 2009, 03:15:27 AM

Fecking awesome! Will probably make my best of list for 2009, it was seriously that freaking good. Not since Shaun of the Dead has there been such a spot on, loving and accurate genre spoof/recreation, it functions as a love letter to a disreputable genre and as a very, very good entry in it. The script was fantastic, Black Dynamite's recollection of his nightmarish Vietnam experience being a particular highlight. Its got tons of film geek cred in all the little details it gets right, and it just friggin works as a smart-dumb comedy. I got nothing but love for this movie.

I saw Black Dynamite at the Seattle International Film Festival, it was awesome!

Quote from: Willco

Also, if you want to talk about a truly bad film, one with no redeeming qualities, I saw Land of the Lost tonight. It was probably the most painfully unfunny Will Ferrell experience thus far.

I semi-watched it on the flight back from Omaha last month. My God, it was worse than I imagined...

And seriously, what the hell were you doing watching Land of the Lost? At least I was stuck on a plane, I didn't choose it...

Don Flamenco · « **Reply #2092 on:** November 22, 2009, 11:54:26 AM »

Quote from: T EXP on November 22, 2009, 11:43:31 AM

Ferrell is a one trick pony. Good for him that he was able to parlay that into a $20 million/movie career but he's been unfunny for almost a decade now.

Seems like a lot of played out comedy actors end up doing serious parts in quirky indie films (like adam sandler in punch drunk love and others that I can't think of)...I wonder if he'll do something like that.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #2093 on:** November 22, 2009, 12:29:33 PM »

Quote from: Kranz Fafka on November 22, 2009, 11:54:26 AM

Quote from: T EXP on November 22, 2009, 11:43:31 AM
Ferrell is a one trick pony. Good for him that he was able to parlay that into a $20 million/movie career but he's been unfunny for almost a decade now.

Seems like a lot of played out comedy actors end up doing serious parts in quirky indie films (like adam sandler in punch drunk love and others that I can't think of)...I wonder if he'll do something like that.

Didn't he kind of already do that with Stranger Than Fiction?

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #2094 on:** November 22, 2009, 03:51:56 PM »

Which was a good movie, in all seriousness.

Don Flamenco · « **Reply #2095 on:** November 22, 2009, 03:54:48 PM »

Quote from: Great Rumbler on November 22, 2009, 12:29:33 PM

Quote from: Kranz Fafka on November 22, 2009, 11:54:26 AM
Quote from: T EXP on November 22, 2009, 11:43:31 AM
Ferrell is a one trick pony. Good for him that he was able to parlay that into a $20 million/movie career but he's been unfunny for almost a decade now.

Seems like a lot of played out comedy actors end up doing serious parts in quirky indie films (like adam sandler in punch drunk love and others that I can't think of)...I wonder if he'll do something like that.

Didn't he kind of already do that with Stranger Than Fiction?

whoops, I was out of the loop on that one.

Quote from: BrandNew on November 22, 2009, 03:51:56 PM

Which was a good movie, in all seriousness.

I'll have to check it out. I mentioned the trend because a lot of these guys end up being really good in more dramatic roles-- punch drunk love was perfect for sandler, Jim Carrey was great in The Truman Show and Eternal Sunshine, Robin Williams genuinely freaked me out in One Hour Photo, etc.

brawndolicious · « **Reply #2096 on:** November 22, 2009, 04:01:54 PM »

By those examples, Jim Carrey is quite a bit better.

Don Flamenco · « **Reply #2097 on:** November 22, 2009, 04:05:53 PM »

How was The Number 23? Sounds like it has an interesting premise.

Barry Egan · « **Reply #2098 on:** November 22, 2009, 04:10:54 PM »

garbage.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #2099 on:** November 22, 2009, 04:23:03 PM »

Quote from: Kranz Fafka on November 22, 2009, 04:05:53 PM

How was The Number 23? Sounds like it has an interesting premise.

don't bother. All he needs is Eternal Sunshine.

News:

Author Topic: Movie News, Reviews, and Discussion Super-Thread (Read 5152811 times)