Outrageous Prices For Food and Entertainment! (The Movie Reviews Thread)

[Reply #720 on:]

What does everyone feel about The Hobbit? I'm still not entirely sure what to think of it. I've only seen it once, when it came out, but I've been meaning to watch it again. But, I guess you could say I was expecting it to be a lot more "Lord of the Rings" style. Just like, the atmosphere, the effects, etc.
I feel like they took advantage of the modern movie-making techniques a bit much. Idk, it's a bit hard to explain. Perhaps it's just the 60 frames per second or whatever it is, but idk. It just doesn't feel very.. "original". Know what I mean? I mean, I loved the original LOTR Trilogy. Total 10/10 for that. And I've watched it like seven times!

My point is, it just wasn't what I was expecting. I mean, the movie was great, don't get me wrong. But the effects, the atmosphere and the frame-speed thing was just a little bit too "modern" for that average LOTR feel I was expecting. Idk. It's hard to explain. I just thought they had a little too much CGI in there - like the 3D Orcs. I mean, come on now, since when are Orcs animated? I mean, obviously they are in battle scenes to give it that "large army" effect thing, and a few things like cave trolls as well, but with the main Orc boss thing it just didn't satisfy me. It wasn't that classic LOTR feel I was expecting.

[Reply #721 on:]

What does everyone feel about The Hobbit? I'm still not entirely sure what to think of it. I've only seen it once, when it came out, but I've been meaning to watch it again. But, I guess you could say I was expecting it to be a lot more "Lord of the Rings" style. Just like, the atmosphere, the effects, etc.
I feel like they took advantage of the modern movie-making techniques a bit much. Idk, it's a bit hard to explain. Perhaps it's just the 60 frames per second or whatever it is, but idk. It just doesn't feel very.. "original". Know what I mean? I mean, I loved the original LOTR Trilogy. Total 10/10 for that. And I've watched it like seven times!

My point is, it just wasn't what I was expecting. I mean, the movie was great, don't get me wrong. But the effects, the atmosphere and the frame-speed thing was just a little bit too "modern" for that average LOTR feel I was expecting. Idk. It's hard to explain. I just thought they had a little too much CGI in there - like the 3D Orcs. I mean, come on now, since when are Orcs animated? I mean, obviously they are in battle scenes to give it that "large army" effect thing, and a few things like cave trolls as well, but with the main Orc boss thing it just didn't satisfy me. It wasn't that classic LOTR feel I was expecting.

While I won't come to a final conclusion on The Hobbit until all three movies are out, I agree that all the LoTR movies were better than An Unexpected Journey.

That said, I really enjoyed it overall. I love the way most of the scenes from the book were adapted, and the casting was spot on.

I have to disagree with the atmosphere though. I felt like the changes made from the source material helped it to fit in better alongside the LoTR trilogy than if they had followed it religiously (this includes the running time). Everything from the sets to the soundtrack felt right up there with LoTR for me. Come to think of it, my gripes with The Hobbit aren't particularly general things. Generic CGI orc villain being one of them.

I'm eagerly awaiting The Desolation of Smaug.

[Reply #722 on:]

I definitely agree with both of you that the LotR movies were all much better than An Unexpected Journey.

While I did like it very much overall, I thought it dragged on too long in places. I never became bored in any of the LoTR films, but I did several times in AUJ. I still think having The Hobbit split into three movies is completely unnecessary and just an obnoxious money-grab.

That being said, I didn't mind the CGI orcs, and I loved the scene with Gollum. I also thought the casting was perfect, and I really enjoyed the more light-hearted, humorous atmosphere in comparison to LotR movies.

So, even though I had some issues with AUJ, it fulfilled my high expectations, and I'm still very excited about The Desolation of Smaug.

[Reply #723 on:]

I'm the opposite. I love the LOTR movies, but at times I thought they dragged a LOT, and I'm not even talking about the extended versions. I found myself hard-pressed to get interested in any of the more political, story-aimed scenes. I was mostly just in it for the action. So honestly, I kind of prefer the new Hobbit movie, just as I preferred the book The Hobbit to any of the trilogy books. It's much more of a straightforward action adventure film without as much of the political trappings of the trilogy, which I like. I know many love the story of the trilogy, but I'm just not one of them.

[Reply #724 on:]

I never got past reading The Two Towers, but I did read the first one. I do admit that it dragged on a bit, but I never found it extremely boring. It was still quite acceptable for me.

Meanwhile, the heavy Tolkien fans are in outrage that the next movie is apparently bringing in a character that wasn't in the book, a "female elf" or something that's with Legolas.

[Reply #725 on:]

Legolas was not in The Hobbit, however he was the son of Thranduil; the king of Mirkwood, who was. As Legolas was alive during that time, it's quite reasonable to assume he would have participated in the events of The Hobbit had Tolkien written it after The Lord of the Rings.

I'm not seeing many people rage about it, because generally the people who care enough to complain understand the above. I don't have much opinion on this new "Tauriel" character yet, by the way.

[Reply #726 on:]

Do bear in mind I said "heavy Tolkien fans". And by heavy, I mean big. So obviously not many people would've raged or anything about it - perhaps only just those fans. At least, that's what I'm hearing.

As for Legolas being in The Hobbit, I'm not entirely sure. He was shown in the trailer so I was assuming he was originally in the book. Also, while we were out for my uncle's birthday today we were having a discussion about it, and my dad was referencing to the fact that Legolas was in the book when he was talking about the female elf, and that it was only her that was being criticized by the fans for being an "add-in", not Legolas. So perhaps he was there all along. I've never read the book though, so idk. I suppose we'll just see how it rolls out when it's released.

[Reply #727 on:]

Do bear in mind I said "heavy Tolkien fans". And by heavy, I mean big.

Are you specifically referring to people who are both Tolkien fans, and fat? Just come right out and say it, dude. I don't see why fat Tolkien fans are more likely to be annoyed about changes being made for the movie (maybe they're cranky because their snacks cost so much now).

The movie is essentially an extended version of The Hobbit, both in breadth and scope as well as length. It's a look at Middle Earth during the period leading up to the War of the Ring, and features things drawn from Tolkien's notes and other stories (all of them mostly logically, if slightly ridiculously. The only thing I've been rolling my eyes hard at was the sled drawn by fucking rabbits).

I'm irritated personally that this wasn't done as "The Hobbit" and then two or more "Tales from Middle Earth" movies, but this is apparently the way that people like their entertainment adulterated nowadays. I suppose I can roll with that. I mean, I'd rather what we're getting than nothing.

I preferred the book The Hobbit to any of the trilogy books. It's much more of a straightforward action adventure film without as much of the political trappings of the trilogy, which I like. I know many love the story of the trilogy, but I'm just not one of them.

Me too. Well, I mean, as much as I really like the Lord of the Rings, I like The Hobbit a lot more. Reading the Lord of the Rings is like reading the Bible. I'm an avid reader, and devour books quickly. I read them many times over, and I read them all the time. I've usually got a book I'm working my way through, and I have to pace myself to make sure I can drag them out for a bit (so that I don't end up running out of book halfway through a long train ride or whilst waiting for something that I've arrived early for). The Lord of the Rings is a long, hard (but rewarding), merciless slog for me. Tolkien's work is wonderful, and I enjoy it. But it's work that contains a lot to be savoured, pondered, turned over in the mind. It's a true epic, and you need to be able to hold the entire thing in your head at once to appreciate it. Enjoying just one chapter or passage at once is impossible to do properly without considering everything that you've read before that point, which means that you've to use a lot of brainspace to enjoy the books.

Which means that they translate to film as very, very long entities. Which can make them hard going, since the action and adventure are punctuated by lots of politics and talking and exposition and subtle allegory suited to the time at which the books were written (and scenery porn, which wasn't something that Tolkien put in explicitly, but all of his fans seem to enjoy immensely).

The Hobbit is pure high adventure, set in a magnificent fantasy world, and filled with the sort of non-stop action and peril and triumph and then more of the same that you can dip in and out of, appreciating it in discrete parts rather than needing to try and comprehend each piece as part of a larger whole (until you get to the end, and then it's all nicely tied together for you because it was originally a story for his kids, and Tolkien knew that children usually need things neatly packaged like that).

So, tl:dr; I'm looking forward to seeing the second movie, whilst still slightly miffed that the story wasn't contained all in one, with the extras made into new entities for people to consider separately. But not miffed enough that I won't immensely enjoy the film.

[Reply #728 on:]

I'm irritated personally that this wasn't done as "The Hobbit" and then two or more "Tales from Middle Earth" movies, but this is apparently the way that people like their entertainment adulterated nowadays. I suppose I can roll with that. I mean, I'd rather what we're getting than nothing.

Yeah, it could have worked better as shorter version (1, maybe 2 movies) with just the one solid stroyline. What I like about The Hobbit (as a book) was that adventure with interesting and mysterious "obstacles".

What seemed to be stretched most in the first movie, was fighting scenes. Even though they were part of the book, they could have been presented shorter. They even started to bore me.

[Reply #729 on:]

One of the reasons they're splitting into a trilogy is for money. Money and women. 'Nuff said.

[Reply #730 on:]

Tolkein was an inspired novice when it comes to writing. Many others of the genre have written far better tomes, but very few have turned out to be so compelling.

LOTR has strength in depth. Peter Jackson et al. have my confidence to bring a visualisation of what I want desperately to see on screen (that being The Hobbit) and if they choose to flesh it out a bit (or enormously) so be it.

The only thing I've been rolling my eyes hard at was the sled drawn by fucking rabbits.

I rolled my eyes more at the fact that Jackson chose to film a portion of that scene on what has been previously established as the fields of Rohan.

[Reply #731 on:]

Hehe. It seems that whenever Jackson feels like an extra action scene is needed, he just says "Okay then. Warg riders it is."

[Reply #732 on:]

Or he just jumps in with a dodgy haircut and a carrot in his mouth.

[Reply #733 on:]

Man of Steel was pretty average, as movies go. Felt confused, like it didn't know if it was a full-blown Superman movie, or a pile of origin story and loose exposition notes.

The best thing about the film was Russell Crowe's performance as Superman's dad, and he was pretty mediocre. So. Go see it if you don't care about the film and just want to stare at whatshisname's physique.

[Reply #734 on:]

Lol. I agree, tnuk. Man of Steel had so much potential in its core premeses but failed to capitalize on any of them and just devolved into a series of long, pointless fight scenes.

They moved away from the prototypical comic book superhero motif and set up the story as a piece of science fiction. I thought that was interesting. They removed kryptonite and made his weakness a result of changing atmospheres. I liked that. But then half of the movie was just two invulnerable guys punching at each other. They can withstand bullets and crashing through buildings, but for some reason they just kept punching each other. It made no sense to me and just seemed so pointless.

I'd advise skipping out on this one.

[Reply #735 on:]

BINKY EATS TOAST

I found this in the bargain bin at my local record store, and immediately sprung for the beta-max after reading so many positive things about it on SSSSSSSTP. I felt it was a little slow-moving at first, especially the long, drawn-out shots from the toaster's perspective, though seeing the bread brown at a rate that slow certainly made me contemplate my own meaningless existence. This is a film about such topics (though I could've done without the pressing social commentary), and Binky is an EXCELLENT point of entry for the audience; even if I personally found myself relating more to the butter at times. At 17 hours in length, this film drags at some points, though the twist ending in the final seconds makes it all worthwhile (I certainly won't spoil it for anyone, but suffice it to say: EAT YOUR HEART OUT, EMNITE SHARMALAYINE).

Overall I give it 11 thumbs up, though certainly won't be watching it again anytime soon. At least not for the next week or so, anyway.

[Reply #736 on:]

Iron Man 3
Christ is this a belated review. Unless I already posted one up and simply forgot about it. I have one word to sum up my experience: Meh.

6/10, mostly because RDJ is so damned entertaining and I'm a sucker for Tony x Pepper shipping.

Star Trek Into Darkness

It was alright. Dunno if I like how Uhura and Spock's characters were, uhhh, characterized in some spots but it wasn't a huge thing for the film so I can overlook it. Worth seeing.

8/10

[Reply #737 on:]

The Mechanic (2011)

In spite of the plot being ridiculously predictable, I never get tired of watch super elaborate crimes take place, so this was enjoyable. I also thought the ending was pretty neat.

6/10

[Reply #738 on:]

Man Of Steel

5/10

In my opinion, it wasn't very good. It felt kind of jumbled, and I never got any real emotion from it. The special effects were good, but the story was poor.

Like tnuk said, Russell Crowe was probably the best in it.

[Reply #739 on:]

Monsters University

Go see it. It's not the average college flick that deals with two or more characters acting like assholes with no repercussions [unless I am severely mistaken as to what college movies are really about which I probably am]. It's wonderfully animated, the movie never really feels like it's too pandering, you get to see how Monsters Inc. got their top scarer team. Were there cliches? Absolutely. Were there plot twists that were obvious? Yeah, a few. But they tossed some twists and turns in there off the beaten path enough to satisfy me.

9.5/10

[Reply #740 on:]

Man Of Steel
There were two junkies sitting behind my friends and I in the cinema, distracting me from the movie, so I don't know... I liked it?
The parts where I wasn't mildly paranoid about getting stabbed with a syringe in the neck were cool!
B-

[Reply #741 on:]

I'm currently immersed in The Lake House with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. The premise is that their characters can communicate across a span of two years, via a mailbox at a beloved lake house that they both have lived in. Keanu's character is two years in the past and hers is living in the present.

If you really think about how their actions as a result of their meeting affects the time continuum, then you'll really go mad. But that doesn't bother me none, because I love love the chemistry between them (yeah, they're rarely on screen together!), and the whole melancholy mood of longing and loss just kills me! The cinematography is awesome--it makes me really want to see Chicago--and the soundtrack a perfect complement.

It totally was panned by critics and I don't think it did too well at the box office, but oh well. I should see the original movie that it's a remake of, Il Mare.

[Reply #742 on:]

My Little Pony: Equestria Girls

There is very little about this film that I didn't like. The high school AU genre shift was handled remarkably well and, despite worries that it would be done for entirely pointless reasons, actually served as decent character development for Princess Twilight.

The music also went through a genre shift for this film, and might not be to everyone's liking. I myself have no bias against any sort of music, so long as I get to keep my eardrums after listening to it, and I found each of the songs to be very enjoyable, particularly the "fixing it up" scene and the cafeteria number.

Show spoiler

GET UP GET DOWN

The shout-outs were plentiful, but none of them were superfluous or failed to add to the story, with the exception of the one placed at the very end of the credits, where such fanservice belongs. (Oh, and Rainbow Dash. Rainbow Dash is best background human.) Thus, while it does feel at moments that the story has come to a sudden halt for the sake of a self-referential gag, each one is actually used very effectively to either drive home a character moment for Twilight (e.g., the vending machine) or as foreshadowing (e.g., the CMC video).

The ending is a little rushed, but is not a deus ex machina as some have claimed. It took me about fifteen seconds of thought to figure out what was happening, given what little exposition there was, but it still made perfect sense given what else has been revealed during the series.

And, unfortunately, that is the film's worst aspect. Anyone who has watched the television series will be able to put together what is happening and understand the significance of certain characters, actions, and the mechanics behind the plot. But anyone unfamiliar with the fictional enviroment in which it takes place is going to be left in the dark at various key moments, and is only going to be baffled.

Oh, and Twilight blushes a few times. Apparently that's a bad thing.

* Xanfor shrugs.

8.5/10, a.k.a., better than Star Trek: Into Darkness, worse than Serenity

[Reply #743 on:]

The parts where I wasn't mildly paranoid about getting stabbed with a syringe in the neck were cool!

Hahaa, I chortled.

I'm currently immersed in The Lake House with Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. The premise is that their characters can communicate across a span of two years, via a mailbox at a beloved lake house that they both have lived in. Keanu's character is two years in the past and hers is living in the present.

Oh my goodness, I actually saw part of/the end of that once - about the last ~20 minutes mayhaps - on TV about two months ago or so when my mom was regarding it, and I remember just being all like "What the eff was that."  I mean globviously I guess I wasn't gonna kmprehend it better without having observed the rest of it, certs, but all I recall was it struck me as a tad confusingish.  Heh, also I assumed it was a TV movie.  Not possessing any real point here or anything, 'tis just so Rarely that anyone mentions a movie I've experienced (well, in this case partially, anyrate) that I felt kmpelled to kmment!

You art definitely correct, Chicago is pretty awesome though.

On that NOTE, Since I'm posting I might as well also stickle this in here,

- I just watched the first two Star Wars movies a while ago!  They were on TV a couple of weeks ago; and I happened to fortuitously catch them.  I was all like, "Wheeee, wooo".  The actual first two, the 'originals', Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, that is.  Except I guess not the actual ACTUAL original originals because I s'pose Han didn't shoot first, et cetera.

And then I was talking about it with winja last night and he was all like telling me all about how Han shoots Greedo first and all that.

Yesyes, it was technically my first real time seeing them [in full and entirety, anyway, si] since I viewed them when they came out in theaters (), and I verily did dig, groove to and enjoyed them.
mm-hm.

Uhh I also watched most of Pocahantas, Cinderella and Mulan on TV that same weekend
too.  >_>
Mostly because I was in a weird mood, honest.
They were in actual fact the first Disney movies I'd seen/watched since I was at least about 9, I think, and while Cinderella being a classic and also the only one of the three I'd seen before was entertaining in its own way, and in a nostalgic sense na klar, I really did quite like the newer ones (especially Poca) quite a bit.. Mulan was kinda messy and all over the place, and of course they were both a TRIFLE implausible and NOT EXACTLY historically Accurate, but I was in that kind of mellow mindset where I was mildly gettin' into them.

Maybe I should've stuck to just talkering about Star Wars.  >_>

[Reply #744 on:]

I re-watched The Hobbit recently and, as any movies go, I guess I enjoyed it a bit more the second time round. Noticed a few more bits and pieces, and understood the storyline a little more accurately. I'm still not sure about it's comparison to the original LOTR Trilogy, but it definitely is a good movie. Looking forward to the next one.

[Reply #745 on:]

"Man of Steel".
I was rather underwhelmed.
+ The intro on Krypton was great. Also, the biomechanical technology/designs were unique and original
- After that, a non linear storyline showed scenes from Superman's life. The whole movie felt more like a montage here.
- The finale battle against Zod felt boring, without any tension. Also, ordinary humans standing 10m next to two Kryptonians beating the crap ouf of each other? No...just...no.
- There was no chemistry between Supes and Lois.  Superman saving her should add something personal to the storyline. Yet, it felt more like "Hm...it's been in the comics, so we have to write it somehow. I do not really want to, but let us incorporate such a scene".  Oh yeah, and Lois saving Superman felt rather like "Politicaly correctness forbits us to let a male character save a female more often than vice versa". This scene also did not make too much sense. No reason why those characters should remotely care for each other. In fact, hardly any reason for these two characters to interact at all..

All in all: The basic story could even have remained. It was just executed in a really, really, REAAAALY boring way.

[Reply #746 on:]

Watched Monsters University the other day. I was shocked, I liked it much better than I thought I would. It's one of the few movies I liked better than the first one. I thought it was going to be Cars 2 unwatchable bad.

C

[Reply #747 on:]

The Lone Ranger: C-

This movie was just horribly stupid; I expected a silly, convoluted story but not flat-out stupidity. Unfortunately, it didn't end up being so-bad-it's-funny either.
Armie Hammer was very flat as the Lone Ranger, and Johnny Depp basically acted as Jack Sparrow transported to the Old West. I loved this schtick when it really was Jack Sparrow, but here it was just tiresome and irritating.
The only part I enjoyed was the fighting that took place on top of a train going full speed. I had just seen the Archer episode where train-top fighting is lampooned, so I thought that whole train-top fight was pretty amusing.
I'm sad that my first time off campus in weeks was to go see this crappy film.

Also, every single preview before this movie looked exactly the same: evil Russians/kaiju/random terrorists attack NYC/D.C./assorted monuments, and a rag-tag team of unlikely heroes works to save the world. They even sounded the same and seemed to have used the exact same score in the background! Not a complaint against the movie itself, of course, just an observation.

[Reply #748 on:]

Europa Report
6 astronauts are sent on a space mission to Jupiters moon, Europa to investigate the possibility of life under the ice... but will they make it back alive?
Shot in found footage style with good performances and nice realistic visual styles (like Moon)
Some recognizable actors: Dexters brother, the guy from the original Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, House's greencard wife, and Sharlto Copley from District 9.

B+

[Reply #749 on:]

It's late, so I'm going to make this one quick;

World War Z

Very good movie. Definitely watch-able. Music was good, had a few jumps and crazy scenes, and was pretty good. I do admit it dragged on a little bit though. Just a tad. And the fact that there wasn't really much build-up at the beginning to the outbreak of the sudden apocalypse. Like one second it's all normal, and the next it's just BOOM! Zombies everywhere. But it was good. No, I enjoyed it. It got your mind focusing on all little details and everything.

8.5/10

[Reply #750 on:]

Oh! I saw that too, but I forgots about it.
World War Zee
Brad Pitt is too handsome to get eaten, and remains pretty calm through the whole ordeal.
The globetrotting of the book is there only in a lesser capacity, and the same for the interviews and flashbacks of the book.
It's replaced with finding out clues/details of the outbreak from certain people and oh shit the zombies are here, let's go to the next place...
Seems like everybody's life around ol' Braddy suddenly turns to shit when he arrives, way to go death-bringer!
Ok if not entirely accurate to the source.
B-

[Reply #751 on:]

Charlie Goes to Hong Kong (Pacific Rim)

I wouldn't have seen this movie by myself, it's one you need to see with friends. I think the weak point is how predictable all of the character arcs are, like there is nothing surprising about anyone's backstory or motivation, you can figure it out within two minutes of meeting each character who's gonna live, who's gonna die and how, etc. At least the overall plot is interesting and entertaining enough that it makes up for the characterization (which isn't badly acted or anything). I was super happy with how much Charlie Day is in this, he gets a good chunk of screentime and is by far the best part of the movie.

Show spoiler

Well I guess the best part is the money shot where this flying kaiju takes the main robot up in the atmosphere causing it to freeze ala Iron Man and at the last second the robot pulls out a big ass sword and slices the kaiju clean in half.

I liked it and while I hate 3D, we saw it in IMAX 3D which is actually the best way to watch it. The scope of the movie is so big that it's the kind of film IMAX was made for.

Charlie Day: A+++
Effects/Fights: A+
Everything else: B-

[Reply #752 on:]

Yeah, Charlie Day was surprisingly good in a non Charlie roll. Obviously most of the characters were predictable which was kind of the point of the film's over the top nature

[Reply #753 on:]

I don't feel like 'over the top' is the right term, it's extravagant but I thought it played it pretty straightforward with a few funny quips here and there. 

[Reply #754 on:]

maybe that's not the best term, I was trying to point out how the film seemed to acknowledge some of its own cliches

[Reply #755 on:]

Prometheus

So I finally got around to watching this film and I thought it was OK. Both as a prequel to Alien and as a film in its own right.

As a film in its own right I had a hard time connecting with anyone in the film but it was visually stunning enough to make me overlook that. And watching in 3D actually felt like the right way to watch it rather than as an "add-on", so well done there.

As a prequel to Alien it evokes enough of the feelings I remember from watching that film for the first time without trying to clone it, or certain scenes from it. But I would have preferred a more direct set up than what was given (let's face it - once you see that navigation room recreated from that enigmatic scene from Alien you kind of want that to be the exact same room).

My heart says it was a good movie. My stomach says it was a good movie. My head says it was a good movie but would have been considered a great movie if it didn't have a pedigree that required excellence. Please can someone tell me what I think.

[Reply #756 on:]

Despicable Me 2: B

This movie was fairly cute but a considerable step down from the first one. I enjoyed the first much more and thought it was both funnier and more intelligent.
I liked the main character's villainy in the first, so since he was turned into a kindly father-figure by the end of that movie, I found him to be a bit dull here. The little minion characters' babbling was cute at first, too, but there was a much larger emphasis placed on them in this film, so I became pretty tired of them long before the movie was finished.
All in all, though, the movie fits its purpose as a young kids' comedy very well judging by how my friend's little sister loved it, and it was entertaining enough for older people, too.

[Reply #757 on:]

I loved the first Despicable Me. Such a sweet movie. Me and my family watched it a few months ago.

[Reply #758 on:]

Prometheus

So I finally got around to watching this film and I thought it was OK. Both as a prequel to Alien and as a film in its own right.

As a film in its own right I had a hard time connecting with anyone in the film but it was visually stunning enough to make me overlook that. And watching in 3D actually felt like the right way to watch it rather than as an "add-on", so well done there.

As a prequel to Alien it evokes enough of the feelings I remember from watching that film for the first time without trying to clone it, or certain scenes from it. But I would have preferred a more direct set up than what was given (let's face it - once you see that navigation room recreated from that enigmatic scene from Alien you kind of want that to be the exact same room).

My heart says it was a good movie. My stomach says it was a good movie. My head says it was a good movie but would have been considered a great movie if it didn't have a pedigree that required excellence. Please can someone tell me what I think.

I generally agree.  I think it was a wonderful movie in its own right... and in fact, it would've been better in a way if it was more separate from Alien.  It's a neat prequel in a way, but the part that pulls me away is the technology aspect.  Clearly we don't go from super awesome touch screens to tiny IBM green blips in a hundred years or whatever, and I really enjoy the tiny IBM green screens from the first movie.

That said, the cinematography was very beautiful to me... it's a very pretty movie, and I liked the philosophical implications as well.  Aside from the two problems most people had with the movie, stupid scientists that play with slug cobra monsters and running in a straight line from a circular falling object, I didn't find the movie too dumb for me to watch.  I could live more with the first problem (smart people do stupid shit), but had the second problem not occurred, I don't think it would have gotten such a bad stigma in its original impressions.  I think that was an overlook by the writers/director/whatever, but it's also understandable, because it's believable that someone would run in a straight line when they don't have time to think.... furthermore, had they done the smart thing, they may still have been crushed, which would have been reasonable to me.

It was an epic film, I loved the android aspect, and I enjoyed the "alien" search for why as well.  It was compelling, and with enough time, I think it'll be a classic in its own right.

[Reply #759 on:]

I can't say the "stupid scientists playing with slug cobra monsters" really bothered me. It all depends on what the experience of the characters was. Who is to say that the scientist in question hadn't had an incredibly rewarding biological discovery experience in the past with some equally freaky and potentially dangerous-looking creature. I would have preferred a more prudent approach to the unknown but that curiosity trumps fear actually echoes John Hurt's response to the egg opening back in the original film.

I did however sort of roll my eyes at the running in a straight line bit. But it certainly wasn't enough to spoil the film.

What I wanted more than anything though was a chest burster scene in that damn control room. Ridley could have given us that but instead we have to assume that the alien at the end was a queen and she went on to produce lots of eggs, the face hugger of one of which "impregnated" a different controller in a different control room on a different ship. So as a fan boy, I'm disappointed. But good movie.