Futurama   Planet Express Employee Lounge
The Futurama Message Board

Design and Support by Can't get enough Futurama
Help Search Futurama chat Login Register

PEEL - The Futurama Message Board    It's got a TV!    I Just Bought Popcorn and a Drink and Now I Have No Money - (movie reviews) « previous next »
 Topic locked! 
Author Topic: I Just Bought Popcorn and a Drink and Now I Have No Money - (movie reviews)  (Read 22274 times)
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Print
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #680 on: 09-06-2014 04:49 »

I absolutely love Gravity. I mean, it doesn't have an absolutely outstanding story, but it's not exactly poor either. Pretty much everything else was absolutely stunning: the cinematography, CGI, sound design, acting and overall immersion were all top-notch.

Apparently it has science goofs as well, according to highly intelligent YouTube commenters that allow things like that to ruin movies for them.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #681 on: 09-06-2014 05:15 »

Oh yeah, my friend's ex-boyfriend was one of those guys who hated the movie because it wasn't scientifically accurate. He was a physics major so I can see how that would bother him, but he went on and on about it.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #682 on: 09-06-2014 13:25 »

I also don't really get all the praise for its cinematography given that it's practically an animated film.

Don't get me wrong, though. I do think it's a good film.
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #683 on: 09-06-2014 16:38 »
« Last Edit on: 09-06-2014 16:45 »

Perhaps "cinematography" isn't the best word, but whatever you want to call it, the visuals for the film are absolutely astounding. I especially love the way the camera will switch between showing these vast, empty long shots of space and then move inside the helmets to create such an intense sense of claustrophobia. It truly does convey perfectly just how beautiful, awe-inspiring, and yet immensely terrifying it all must be for astronauts (even the extraordinary circumstances of the film's premise aside).

They picked the most perfect director for it, too. Children of Men had equally incredible action-packed tracking shots. His films have this fantastic way of immersing you in the action, and making you feel like you're experiencing it alongside the characters, rather than just watching it all pan out.

EDIT: Probably should've read the previous page before I gave my two cents, given that it echoes a lot of what has already been said, but oh well. I stand by it. smile
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #684 on: 09-06-2014 17:56 »
« Last Edit on: 09-06-2014 17:57 »

Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out a few science flaws in Gravity, but then said they were nitpicks and that the movie actually got more right than almost any other space-set film, even including some obscure details.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #685 on: 09-06-2014 18:30 »

I also don't really get all the praise for its cinematography given that it's practically an animated film.

Don't get me wrong, though. I do think it's a good film.

Animators are often tasked with the job that is essentially cinematography; granted they have more room to get what they want because they're less contained by the universal laws of our reality: ex. Steady, uncut cam shot for 5 minutes? In live action, you're camera man has to be very good at walking a path and not juggling the camera (tools usually involved) and if you're walking a moving path with people coming in and out, then you almost definitely have to to choreograph the whole freaking scene, making sure nobody screws up in front of the camera... and also gravity.  In animation.... the camera just does whatever you tell it to do, and you have time to section out all the moving scenes within the one scene.  Animation being less complicated to get right, but perhaps a lot more work for one individual or team of animators to make perfect... also unlimited tries because you're not constrained by a limit on usage of film.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #686 on: 09-07-2014 00:04 »

Yay Winna!
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #687 on: 09-07-2014 00:54 »

Ya, he sure did say a lot of stuff. Huzzah!
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #688 on: 09-07-2014 02:36 »

He's the real winna. smile
Beamer

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #689 on: 09-07-2014 04:44 »

I also don't really get all the praise for its cinematography given that it's practically an animated film.

Don't get me wrong, though. I do think it's a good film.

Animators are often tasked with the job that is essentially cinematography; granted they have more room to get what they want because they're less contained by the universal laws of our reality: ex. Steady, uncut cam shot for 5 minutes? In live action, you're camera man has to be very good at walking a path and not juggling the camera (tools usually involved) and if you're walking a moving path with people coming in and out, then you almost definitely have to to choreograph the whole freaking scene, making sure nobody screws up in front of the camera... and also gravity.  In animation.... the camera just does whatever you tell it to do, and you have time to section out all the moving scenes within the one scene.  Animation being less complicated to get right, but perhaps a lot more work for one individual or team of animators to make perfect... also unlimited tries because you're not constrained by a limit on usage of film.

Exactly. I can't even begin to fathom the logistics of making a film like Gravity.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #690 on: 09-10-2014 05:37 »

Edge of Tomorrow

Alien Sci-Fi action movie mixed with a Groundhog Day concept. This one really surprised me how well written it was and gave me a few good laughs. Some of the battles reminded me of Saving Private Ryan and Starship Troopers in parts. One of my favourite movies of 2014.

A-

I have to agree with this completely. I just watched this and it was fantastic. I feel like nobody even knew about this movie! It's really too bad it will likely be forgotten because it was really, really good. Recommended to any sci-fi/action fan.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #691 on: 09-10-2014 07:24 »

I just read your post, and I have to say, I am thoroughly impressed.  I did not expect this post to be nearly as good as it has been.  It's wonderful, I really went for a rollercoaster of a ride on this one.  It's like that time that I managed to masturbate for the entire theatrical viewing of 2001: A Space Odyssey.  Except I suppose this is more like if I were in an alien jungle of some kind, sitting on my knees, with my wrists tied beneath my chin, and a cloved cigarette protruding out of my mouth being lit by a famous french cartographer.  I kind of feel like nobody even knew you'd make a post like this, and it's just spellbinding.  Posting at its finest.  This is perhaps, the most epic, hand crafted post I have ever come across in the eons that I've had to come across posts.  A rare delicacy in the stratum of posts that are being made these days.  I highly recommend your post to anybody who may or may not be a fan of posts, or even fans of the sci-fi/action genre who also happen to read posts.

I would buy this post, take it home, and read it everyday while I cook and do laundry.  For at least one entire month.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #692 on: 09-22-2014 06:55 »

Snowpiercer

It's one of those movies I got more excited about now that I'm home and I've thought about it. Superb acting, Chris Evans is at his finest, Tilda Swinton is unrecognizable and a fucking asshole, Allison Pill has a great scene, and John Hurt is always great and so forth. It reminded me of a Terry Gilliam kind of movie. While I do have one issue with the logic of the train:


I highly recommend the movie. It's brutal and violent though.

A

I just watched this and it was awesome. Why were all the best sci-fi movies (besides Guardians) this year barely seen or heard of?
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #693 on: 09-22-2014 07:01 »

I keep hearing how good Edge of Tomorrow was but I didn't see it when we had it because I didn't think it'd be anything special. Personally, it takes a lot to get me invested in a sci-fi film, especially of the standard Hollywood fair, but Snowpiercer was so odd and unique that I was pretty intrigued from the get go.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #694 on: 09-22-2014 08:30 »

Do you like Futurama?
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #695 on: 09-22-2014 08:47 »

I keep hearing how good Edge of Tomorrow was but I didn't see it when we had it because I didn't think it'd be anything special. Personally, it takes a lot to get me invested in a sci-fi film, especially of the standard Hollywood fair, but Snowpiercer was so odd and unique that I was pretty intrigued from the get go.

Edge of Tomorrow is definitely more blockbuster-y than Snowpiercer, which is by far one of the weirdest movies I've seen recently. Still, a solid premise, good characters and dialogue, and a sense of humor made it a very fun watch.
Spacedal11

Space Pope
****
« Reply #696 on: 09-22-2014 09:20 »

Do you like Futurama?


DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #697 on: 09-22-2014 13:01 »

Edge of Tomorrow is pretty flawless. One of my favourites of 2014, definitely an underrated gem. Perhaps it might become a cult movie?
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #698 on: 09-22-2014 14:25 »

I think "flawless" is a bit far, but it's certainly a pretty great action movie and one of the better blockbusters of recent years.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #699 on: 09-22-2014 22:39 »

I think "flawless" is a bit far

I'm curious, what problems did you have with it? The ending? The believability of Tom Cruise portraying a character like that?
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #700 on: 09-22-2014 23:08 »

The believability of Tom Cruise

I, too, have problems with the believability of Tom Cruise. Does he really exist, or is he merely a projection of the collective unconscious* onto a convenient blank template?


*Winna.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #701 on: 09-23-2014 00:25 »
« Last Edit on: 09-23-2014 12:41 »

Its romance subplot was a bit tired and cliched and predictable, there were certain issues with logic dotted about here and there, Brendan Gleeson's performance was awful (which was strange because he's usually so good),
, Emily Blunt is extremely uncharismatic, the aliens are called "mimics" despite doing nothing remotely resembling mimicry, other elements such as the music, cinematography and acting were largely functional but nothing special, etc, etc.

It's a very good film in my opinion, but "flawless" suggests a 10/10 masterpiece and it's not even close.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #702 on: 09-23-2014 05:48 »

Spoilers?
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #703 on: 09-23-2014 12:41 »

Whoops, sorry.
DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #704 on: 09-23-2014 12:59 »

the aliens are called "mimics" despite doing nothing remotely resembling mimicry

Isn't it explained that they learn combat techniques used against them really quickly so they can adapt to defend against them? "Mimic" kind of makes sense but I suppose it could have been different.
cyber_turnip

Urban Legend
***
« Reply #705 on: 09-23-2014 14:43 »

Hmm, I guess. It just heavily implies that they're about to face off against shape-shifters or pod-people or replicants or something like that.

It's not really a major flaw; I'm just being pedantic.
winna

Avatar Czar
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #706 on: 09-24-2014 12:59 »

Humans make up a variety of terms to refer to people that only loosely represent the particular words being used.  I'd say that's actually a note of authenticity, as far as art mimicking reality goes.
UnrealLegend

Space Pope
****
« Reply #707 on: 10-02-2014 05:55 »

I recently saw The Fifth Element. It was... okay. I was amused by Gary Oldman's character almost choking to death on a cherry and I enjoyed the campy tone the movie had.

But... that fucking "Ruby Rhod" character pretty much ruined the entire thing for me. He was a Jar-Jar tier abomination that had no place there at all.
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #708 on: 10-02-2014 06:31 »

Haha, agreed 100%. What an unfunny, unredeemably awful character.
Monster_Robot_Maniac

Liquid Emperor
**
« Reply #709 on: 10-02-2014 22:08 »

Same. I liked the offbeat tone and fun world, but that character really trashed what was a fairly good story.
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #710 on: 10-02-2014 22:24 »


I think that the movie as a whole is over-the-top, and I love it. The Ruby Rhod character takes it to the next level of over-the-topness, and is icing on the cake (pyramid?) smile

JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #711 on: 10-02-2014 23:01 »
« Last Edit on: 10-03-2014 01:32 »

Of course the whole movie is over-the-top, but that doesn't mean there's no limit to what's entertainingly so. There's a difference between being endearingly campy and just plain annoying, and that character goes far over the line. If he's the icing on the cake than it's an icing made of shit.
~FazeShift~

Moderator
DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #712 on: 10-03-2014 01:13 »

Supergreen!
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #713 on: 10-03-2014 02:17 »


Well, I thought it was fun and funny.  Different strokes, and all that smile

JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #714 on: 10-03-2014 02:33 »

No, you're wrong! puke
ShinyMetal***

Professor
*
« Reply #715 on: 10-05-2014 22:50 »

 Well its become tradition for my friend and i to go to the movies every weekend tongue Last time we saw Maze Runner
 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA++++++++++ effing amazingggg.

Then there was If I Stay
B typical heart warming love story. Predictable, but still good.

Next we are seeing Annabelle and whatever the hell else is playing. I'll keep ya'll updated ya hear?! tongue
JoshTheater

Space Pope
****
« Reply #716 on: 10-06-2014 02:05 »
« Last Edit on: 10-06-2014 02:23 »

Gone Girl

Finally, something serious worth raving about. This is one of the most suspenseful, emotionally intense thrillers I've seen in a hell of a long time (although Prisoners from last year is a contender). It might be David Fincher's best work so far, Trent Reznor provides another subtle and unsettling score, and the casting was perfectly chosen. It's kind of trashy and almost ridiculously preposterous, but the brilliant acting and direction makes it absolutely entertaining. I definitely recommend this, but be warned that you're in for a mindfuck.

A+
Tachyon

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #717 on: 10-06-2014 03:29 »
« Last Edit on: 10-06-2014 03:48 »

A few months ago I bought U-571 from the discount bin of the local Safeway, on a lark. Though I'm a casual history buff with respect to WWII submarines, the U-571 didn't ring a bell.  So last night I put in the disc, dimmed the lights, and let it rip.

The premise is simple: steal an Enigma Machine from a German submarine. The plot is a sequence of events that taken in its entirety is ludicrously improbable, but several of the individual elements are not only possible, but actually happened during the war.  Regarding the technical accuracy of the film, it's far beyond nit-picking for all but the most hardcore sub fanatics, or, you know, actual WWII submariners.

There are a couple of gratuitous Hollywood clichés, but  It's a fun, suspenseful film that will give you a taste of what it was like to serve on an S-boat or U-boat.

B for most people.  A for anyone with an interest in submarines. And for the latter, be sure to watch director Jonathan Mostow's commentary.

DannyJC13

DOOP Secretary
*
« Reply #718 on: 10-06-2014 12:18 »

Gone Girl

I, too, saw this on Saturday. Really dark, disturbing film but very engaging; and that score is phenomenal. I think this was the first ever Ben Affleck film I've seen. eek
totalnerd undercanada

DOOP Ubersecretary
**
« Reply #719 on: 10-06-2014 15:15 »

The premise is simple: steal an Enigma Machine from a German submarine. The plot is a sequence of events that taken in its entirety is ludicrously improbable, but several of the individual elements are not only possible, but actually happened during the war.

There are several glaring problems with this film.

Firstly, the film is set a year after the Enigma cipher was cracked, and secondly, the Enigma machinery and notebooks obtained by the Allies were taken from two submarines in 1940 and 1941 by the crews of two Royal Navy ships who forced them to the surface in each case - no infiltration or espionage was involved in obtaining these items. Standard tactics were used - depth charges forced the subs to surface and then the crew were taken prisoner under the guns of the attacking ships.

Of course, the team at Bletchley Park under Alan Turing successfully decoded Enigma themselves, in 1940, with only minimal recovery of material. A Polish team were also successful in the logical deduction of the Enigma cipher's construction and the replication of Enigma machinery (selling this information to Britain at the start of the war).

It was not until 1943 that the US deployed a mechanical solution to cracking messages encrypted with Enigma, and they built their machines with the help of Alan Turing, basing it on his early designs (upgrading it to be capable of breaking the more advanced codes then in use, they discovered that Enigma messages could now be deciphered easily and routinely, and both Bletchley Park and the US Navy would use these machines from then on, eliminating the need for most of the espionage activities that had characterised the first half of the war's codebreaking efforts).

None of the driving elements of the plot actually occurred, and the film allows the American military to take credit for the various accomplishments of Canadian, British, and most importantly, Polish scientists, codebreakers, spies, and servicemen who captured materials and broke ciphers that would lead in 1942 to the development of a routine and simple mechanical system for the decryption of German military communications. Which the Americans purchased the plans for.

As for nit-picking with technical inaccuracies, that's been done to death all over the internet. Wikipedia has a list of some, and pages like this one show some of the factual and continuity mistakes visible in the final cut of the film. Many of them are not so much hardcore nitpicks as mistakes easily recognisable if you've watched enough war films that are actually accurate. There are some tiny background goofs, some big mistakes (such as not realising that the German submarine types involved in the underwater battles did not carry torpedoes), and a number of basic mistakes in continuity.

This film came under heavy criticism when it came out, and doesn't deserve a positive review today. There's a reason it was in the discount bin, Tachy.

Also, I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it. It's well known as a film that came under a lot of criticism both for basic mistakes in writing it, and for the appropriation of the actions of servicemen and scientists from multiple nations by the American military.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 Print 
 Topic locked! 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines | some icons from famfamfam
Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.
Page created in 0.205 seconds with 18 queries.