Come December, keep in mind there is already a Star Wars thread - Movie Reviews

[Reply #40 on:]

Okay just got back from Age of Ultron. I love a lot of it, kind of meh on certain character developments, the continuity is sloppy, but I saw it with a pack audience and everyone was so into it which makes these movies a lot more fun to watch than alone. At this point I fear that Captain America: Civil War is going to be more like Age of Ultron than Winter Soldier. That seems to be a given now that we have more superheroes on the roster but WS is such a good standalone movie I almost wish it would just remain separate from the rest of the MCU.

The other thing that made me happy was how the Ant-Man trailer killed with my audience, which gives me a lot more hope when that comes out. I'm really hoping Paul Rudd shows up in other MCU films but I actually am looking forward to it being it's own little story like how Guardians of the Galaxy was its own story.

Vision is awesome. I love purpley-magenta Paul Bettany.

[Reply #41 on:]

I absolutely loved it. I 100% agree with those who are saying it's better than the first one...the plot was more interesting, the dialogue and character arcs were more thoughtful, and most surprisingly it managed to be even more consistently funny. One of the strongest Marvel outings so far...they're on a huge roll right now. (I'm guessing Ant-Man will bring us back to Thor levels of decent before Civil War blows us all away again.)

I'm not at all understanding the complaints about continuity, I couldn't find any errors. All the things UnrealLegend brought up were things that weren't explicitly explained but can have incredibly easy assumptions made about. At the end of Iron Man 3, Stark doesn't destroy his main suit, just all his extra ones, and calls it a "clean slate"  hinting that he's going to start building new things (like the droids we see in this movie). It's implied that The Avengers started working together again to take out remaining Hydra bases after the events of The Winter Soldier (not hard to accept considering they ended as good friends at the end of the first movie). And Nick Fury got a new eyepatch...is that really something that was confusing to consider? Seriously? Come on.

Anyway, the movie looks amazing, James Spader was brilliant as Ultron, Scarlet Witch and The Vision are awesome new characters, and overall this was two hours of great fun. Highly recommend.

[Reply #42 on:]

WTF is a "meerkat movie deal"? 

* Tachy wanders off to look up the reference

We used to have orange Wednesdays where customers on a certain network could get 2 for 1 cinema tickets. They ditched it in Feb of this year, and a price comparison website picked up the deal and made it 'Meerkat Movies'. Compare the market have had a meerkat theme for years now and they ran with it.

You get one ticket free and the free ticket admits one Meerkat.

[Reply #43 on:]

I absolutely loved it. I 100% agree with those who are saying it's better than the first one...the plot was more interesting, the dialogue and character arcs were more thoughtful, and most surprisingly it managed to be even more consistently funny. One of the strongest Marvel outings so far...they're on a huge roll right now. (I'm guessing Ant-Man will bring us back to Thor levels of decent before Civil War blows us all away again.)

I'm not at all understanding the complaints about continuity, I couldn't find any errors. All the things UnrealLegend brought up were things that weren't explicitly explained but can have incredibly easy assumptions made about. At the end of Iron Man 3, Stark doesn't destroy his main suit, just all his extra ones, and calls it a "clean slate"  hinting that he's going to start building new things (like the droids we see in this movie). It's implied that The Avengers started working together again to take out remaining Hydra bases after the events of The Winter Soldier (not hard to accept considering they ended as good friends at the end of the first movie). And Nick Fury got a new eyepatch...is that really something that was confusing to consider? Seriously? Come on.

Anyway, the movie looks amazing, James Spader was brilliant as Ultron, Scarlet Witch and The Vision are awesome new characters, and overall this was two hours of great fun. Highly recommend.

You see, I understand that those things are incredibly minor, and it probably seems like I'm nitpicking the shit out of this movie, but I feel like the small bits of continuity help make the other films feel relevant. And the idea of the Avengers suddenly working together makes me feel like Thor could've called Stark for help during Thor: the Dark World, or Hulk could've lent Cap a hand in his movie.

You know, I'm gonna shut up now. I feel like I'm not giving this movie enough credit. They weren't exactly "plot-holes" but they are things which I wish were addressed. There is apparently an extended edition in the works, so maybe that'll satisfy my lust for continuity

[Reply #44 on:]

Those are fair points. I guess if there was any way to counter that, it'd be to bring up that in Iron Man 3, Dark World and Winter Soldier, the events that take place happen relatively quickly and without warning, and each of our heroes are mostly responding to the threats they have to take care of in real time, without really any chance for large-scale mission planning that might have allowed them to get in touch with other Avengers for help (we also don't know how spread out any of them are before the events of this movie). The Hydra base attack we see in this movie (and the ones before it that are mentioned) seem like the result of having had the time to get together and meticulously map out an attempt to go on the offensive, with the rest of the movie being them responding to things after they're all already together. It's a blanket excuse that still doesn't make complete sense, but it's enough that I can write it off in my mind.

I'm also looking forward to an extended edition, from what I hear a lot had to be cut for time.

[Reply #45 on:]

Saw it late Thursday night and thought it was super fun, even though I thought the character romance aspect was kind of meh. I thought Spader killed in his role and felt like a far more menacing villain than Loki

[Reply #46 on:]

Interstellar

[Reply #47 on:]

Saw it late Thursday night and thought it was super fun, even though I thought the character romance aspect was kind of meh. I thought Spader killed in his role and felt like a far more menacing villain than Loki

Loki isn't meant to be menacing. He's just a marvelous douchebag.

[Reply #48 on:]

Yeah, I thought he was really cool and all with such a great performance, it's just that ultron seemed like more of a threat and a large part of that was due to Spader

[Reply #49 on:]

Seems like a calculated move on Marvel's part...the stakes need to be able to get higher with each movie.

[Reply #50 on:]

I feel like they succeeded. Loki was a complete non-threat.

[Reply #51 on:]

I recently saw Watchmen. Pretty neat story, with memorable characters from Rorschach and his creepy little mask to Dr. Manhattan and his electric blue dick.

I felt like it dragged on a bit near the beginning and took a while to find its feet but it eventually paid off since the ending was genuinely surprising for me.

[Reply #52 on:]

Have you read the graphic novel?

[Reply #53 on:]

I've been meaning to do both.  One of these days...

[Reply #54 on:]

Have you read the graphic novel?

I haven't, however I've heard the movie is relatively true to the material.

[Reply #55 on:]

Have you read the graphic novel?

I haven't, however I've heard the movie is relatively true to the material.

Well yes and no. Yes in that it is certainly a good cliffnotes version of the book and no in that the book is so dense that a film is really not the best format for it. (It would work better for a 13-part miniseries). While I absolutely refuse to support any future Zack Snyder films with money, I will go to bat for Watchmen because based on its extensive but sordid production history, this film version is probably the best we could have gotten.

Also read the book, it's great.

[Reply #56 on:]

What was the straw that broke the camel's back for you for Snyder? Man Of Steel?

[Reply #57 on:]

Sucker Punch. Although I would still like to see his version of Dawn of the Dead, I made the horrible mistake of forgetting that just because you can adapt a very well written graphic novel for the screen does not mean that your own original material is gonna be anywhere near as good. I haven't seen Man of Steel, which to be fair I honestly don't care for Superman that much to begin with, but I lost all interest when I heard Snyder was directing. But I digress, I'll probably go see Batman Loves Superman because it sounds like it's gonna be a trainwreck and I will at least be mentally prepared for a crappy script.

[Reply #58 on:]

Although I would still like to see his version of Dawn of the Dead

It's definitely one of his better offerings to the gods of modern cinema. Although, it's best watched until the end credits start, and then not a second after. The credits are intercut with a montage that sort of robs the ending of a little of the punch it had (it was tacked on after test audiences responded badly to the ending).

It's worth watching, it's got some brilliant moments, but it's not perfect. So don't go in with high expectations, go in expecting a fun zombie apocalypse and nothing more intelligent or emotionally interesting. That way, you should at least be entertained by the one or two moments of intelligence and emotion that are present.

The cameos and references to the original are something of a treat. As are the nods to things like Resident Evil, and a much more muted version of the satirical social commentary that pervaded the original.

If you watch it on DVD, the deleted scenes, and the short "lost tape" are well worth taking a look at, too.

[Reply #59 on:]

Sucker Punch.

I haven't seen it, but I've heard such intensely mixed things.

As for Man Of Steel, I know a lot of people hated it, but I didn't mind it. It wasn't great, or a promising indicator of what a DC Universe might look like, but I wasn't upset that I saw it. The action scenes were cool, at least.

I agree with tnuk's take on the Dawn remake, it's decent enough.

[Reply #60 on:]

The Owls of Ga'Hoole

[Reply #61 on:]

I never understood the people who think Man of Steel was a horrible abortion that should never have been made.

It's not amazing but it's far from being even remotely close to the worst superhero movies.

[Reply #62 on:]

The Owls of Ga'Hoole

The. Fucking. Worst*.

Have I seen this movie? I don't think so.

[Reply #63 on:]

Django Unchained

Pretty much justice porn... loved it. The shootout toward the end was particularly amazing. It was a little bit jarring hearing "nigger" so often in a non-gangster setting although I suppose it's appropriate for the time period. Leonardo DiCaprio and Sam Jackson played such horrible characters so damn well.

[Reply #64 on:]

Django Unchained

Pretty much justice porn... loved it. The shootout toward the end was particularly amazing. It was a little bit jarring hearing "nigger" so often in a non-gangster setting although I suppose it's appropriate for the time period. Leonardo DiCaprio and Sam Jackson played such horrible characters so damn well.

"Quentin Tarantino may use the N-Word, because he thinks he's black"

Had I to decide wether the Oscar should have gone to Jackson instead of Waltz....I'd have to flip a coin.
The movie was all right. The only two scenes I said "Cmooon...you are not serious about this" was the unfitting rap background music. The movie certainly lived by great actors, the story itself did not stand out too much.

The Dark Valley

A "Western" playing in the Austrian Alps? The movie had basically the setting of a typical "Heimatfilm", but took away the nice, clean world, to replace it by a dark, sinister place. Deprived of all joy. (E.g. watch "Pirates of the Carribean", and then a documentary about the REAL life of pirates and sailors of that time. Or watch Mel Gibsons "Inquisition" muscial number, followed by "The name of the rose", etc..  You get the idea  )
A straightforward revenge story, not overly complicated, but carefully executed.
Certainly something different, and worth giving a try.

[Reply #65 on:]

Interstellar

It's a beautiful movie and I really like the themes and sci-fi in it. Even though it's not exactly possible or believable, the science behind the story is solid and it's presented intriguingly and believably. With personal and emotional aspects it explores ideas of objectivity, humanity and subjective person well.

Compared to Inception, the story isn't as strong and it maybe goes for too long, but after second viewing, I'd say Interstellar is about as good, just because how intense and inspiring it is.

Time dilation (and relativity in general) as a premise / 10

[Reply #66 on:]

Even though it's not exactly possible or believable, the science behind the story is solid...

That's something of a contradiction. If it's "not exactly possible", then the science is not "solid". Whilst it might have elements borrowed from realistic science and science fiction, the movie's science is ultimately nonsensical and requires heavy-duty suspension of disbelief.

Unlike, for example, lightsabers. When you take something ridiculous like Interstellar's premise and resolution and attempt to construct a handwavy argument in terms of current scientific understanding, it's either a pretty obvious handwave, or there's a glaring hole in it that an audience with some degree of understanding will be able to spot. But when you take something that's ridiculous and totally fucking awesome at the same time, presenting it as an object which needs no explanation because it's just there and people just use it, then there's no handwaving to sneer at, and no gaping hole to point out.

It's just there. People use it. Like a lightsaber. Which is of course, a totally impossible weapon, but one that even the most ardent picker of nits will defend (partially because it is cool, and partially because it's not something that needs to justify its existence. It's there. People use it. There's no glaring fault with it in the universe where it belongs).

Try to apply a handwavy argument to justify a lightsaber in real life though, and those same pickers of nits will snort at you derisively and explain why it could never work. Try to explain it in terms of current scientific understanding and you'll leave a hole that they can pilot a Star Destroyer through. Which is what happened with Interstellar.

[Reply #67 on:]

Had I do decide wether the Oscar should have gone to Jackson instead of Waltz....I'd have to flip a coin.

Personally I think it should have gone to Leo. His performance was all in.

[Reply #68 on:]

Whilst it might have elements borrowed from realistic science and science fiction, the movie's science is ultimately nonsensical and requires heavy-duty suspension of disbelief.

I agree. I meant that those scientific concepts alone exist and at least in theory they could be true, while the whole thing is sci-fi fantasy with more or less handwaving. I felt like it didn't matter that its explanation would hold true in real life.

[Reply #69 on:]

Speaking of sci-fi, Ex Machina is fantastic and everyone should see it.

[Reply #70 on:]

Speaking of sci-fi, Ex Machina is fantastic and everyone should see it.

It was okay. Beautifully shot, but not the most surprising or original take on AI.

[Reply #71 on:]

I'm sure you're right, but for the life of me right now I can't think of a better one. I honestly can't. It was more intelligent, interesting, and thoughtful than most of its competition, and it managed to subvert most of my expectations in very pleasant ways.

The only other movie that pops to mind right now is Her, but that's not really anywhere near as much about AI as it is about humanity...I wouldn't call it a hard sci-fi movie like Ex Machina very much is.

I'd say it probably cracks my top five sci-fi movies of the new millennium. I'd go as far as calling it essential viewing for fans of sci-fi and at least a heavy recommendation for those who just like good movies in general. It was definitely better than "okay" in my mind.

[Reply #72 on:]

I'd say it probably cracks my top five sci-fi movies of the new millennium. I'd go as far as calling it essential viewing for fans of sci-fi and at least a heavy recommendation for those who just like good movies in general. It was definitely better than "okay" in my mind.

Wow that's quite the statement. Glad you felt that way and I can't think of a better movie in comparison really either (I'll think about it) but yeah it was just okay to me.  

EDIT: Oh doy. The two films I thought about while watching it, Under the Skin and Beyond the Black Rainbow, while not AI films, hit similar territory of the paranormal/alien woman in contrast with the scientist male and are a lot weirder and better for it.

Mad Max Fury Road

I haven't seen any of the other movies but damn. Like damn. I don't think I've ever seen a movie so awesome and serious at the same time that when every one left the theater, they were all quiet because it's such a grim movie. But a totally awesome grim movie.

B+

[Reply #73 on:]

Mad Max Fury Road

I really really hope that this film teaches a few lessons in Hollywood, firstly CGI should be used sparingly as practical effects look much better and action films can be lead by a strong female character.

Long and short of it, I had a lot of fun with this film. The actors all do great jobs with Theron really showing her stuff.  I will admit I did geek out a little when I noticed two Farscape alums Hugh Keays-Byrne  and Mellisa Jaffer but in all fairness the former was also in the first Mad Max.

The action beats are fantastic and it certainly has a strong visual style, I mean how can you not love a rig with it's own personal guitarist whose guitar shoots fire

[Reply #74 on:]

Mad Max Fury Road

...as practical effects can look much better...

ftfy

[Reply #75 on:]

Mad Max Fury Road

...as practical effects can look much better...

ftfy

OK I have seen enough movies, especially of the horror genre not to contest that.

Perhaps it is better to say, films with good practical effects age better than films with good digital effects. In fact I recently re-watched the Lord of the Rings and would say that the Fellowship holds up best visually, the Hobbit films already look like they are dating.

[Reply #76 on:]

I wasn't criticising, just affirming that some practical effects are excellent.  I watched a WW2 movie last fall and at a couple of points (underwater explosions, and a distant blinking light in thick fog) thought "those are some of the least-believable CGI effects I've ever seen!". Yep, the explosions were real, on a 1/4 scale model , iirc.  And the lights were real.  Oops.

[Reply #77 on:]

Just caught the late showing of fury road and I was the only one in theater, but damn that was a good movie

[Reply #78 on:]

Poltergeist (Remake): 

[Reply #79 on:]

I'd not heard of the Poltergeist remake until just recently.  What remake is next?  Jaws?  Close Encounters?  E.T.?