I Just Bought Popcorn and a Drink and Now I Have No Money - (movie reviews)

[Reply #680 on:]

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.

[Reply #681 on:]

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.

[Reply #682 on:]

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.

[Reply #683 on:]

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.

[Reply #684 on:]

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.

[Reply #685 on:]

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.

[Reply #686 on:]

Yay Winna!

[Reply #687 on:]

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

[Reply #688 on:]

He's the real winna.

[Reply #689 on:]

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.

[Reply #690 on:]

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.

[Reply #691 on:]

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.

[Reply #692 on:]

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:

Show spoiler

If they had just explained that the train had a double-decker kind of level, that would have made it a little clearer as to how the logic of the train cars work. There's one train that is just a classroom for school kids but then two trains down its a nightclub. Where do the kids go when class is over? Where are the high school-age kids? Etc.

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?

[Reply #693 on:]

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.

[Reply #694 on:]

Do you like Futurama?

[Reply #695 on:]

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.

[Reply #696 on:]

Do you like Futurama?

[Reply #697 on:]

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

[Reply #698 on:]

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.

[Reply #699 on:]

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?

[Reply #700 on:]

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.

[Reply #701 on:]

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),

Show spoiler

the ending went for a cheap "main character survives his self-sacrifice instead of actually self-sacrificing" cop-out

, 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.

[Reply #702 on:]

Spoilers?

[Reply #703 on:]

Whoops, sorry.

[Reply #704 on:]

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.

[Reply #705 on:]

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.

[Reply #706 on:]

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.

[Reply #707 on:]

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.

[Reply #708 on:]

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

[Reply #709 on:]

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

[Reply #710 on:]

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?)

[Reply #711 on:]

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.

[Reply #712 on:]

Supergreen!

[Reply #713 on:]

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

[Reply #714 on:]

No, you're wrong!

[Reply #715 on:]

 Well its become tradition for my friend and i to go to the movies every weekend 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?!

[Reply #716 on:]

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+

[Reply #717 on:]

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.

[Reply #718 on:]

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.

[Reply #719 on:]

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.