Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Actually it's an imaginary weapon that sends a bright line out at low speed that doe vastly different damage based on plot line. What are the particles?
I just saw Solaris for the first time (Not the Russian one, but the one with Clooney). I'll rate it fairly high ie. a 7/10. Good music, looks nice and Clooney's wife reminds me of someone I know in real life.
The problem I have with this kind of storyline is that they leave a lot to be desired in terms of explanation. When I say "this kind" I'm referring to very abstract storyline like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now, ambiguity is a good thing as it leads to user interpretations; however, when the writer himself has no clue or never thought of things beyond what he's written....that's when things become proper confusing.
The thing about 2001 is that while the universe itself was shown to be abstract, but the thematic behind the events occurring and the characters themselves remained fairly consistent and clear. What this does is that it balances out the movie and it leaves the audience with just the right amount of explanation while leaving the rest open for interpretation, so that the audience doesn't feels like they were left empty handed.
Now Solaris on the other hand is a piece of work that has a universe which is far more abstract and is filled with events that have no clear explanations. The viewer is unable to put a foot anywhere in the universe because everything is so ambiguous and so they are left baffled. The worst part is even the writer for the original novel hasn't got an explanation for the why? and the how? about the things he wrote about in the book since he never considered those..the closest thing to an explanation being "The planet is beyond human understanding" which I think is a cop out.
The problem I have with this kind of storyline is that they leave a lot to be desired in terms of explanation. When I say "this kind" I'm referring to very abstract storyline like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Now, ambiguity is a good thing as it leads to user interpretations; however, when the writer himself has no clue or never thought of things beyond what he's written....that's when things become proper confusing.
The thing about 2001 is that while the universe itself was shown to be abstract, but the thematic behind the events occurring and the characters themselves remained fairly consistent and clear. What this does is that it balances out the movie and it leaves the audience with just the right amount of explanation while leaving the rest open for interpretation, so that the audience doesn't feels like they were left empty handed.
Now Solaris on the other hand is a piece of work that has a universe which is far more abstract and is filled with events that have no clear explanations. The viewer is unable to put a foot anywhere in the universe because everything is so ambiguous and so they are left baffled. The worst part is even the writer for the original novel hasn't got an explanation for the why? and the how? about the things he wrote about in the book since he never considered those..the closest thing to an explanation being "The planet is beyond human understanding" which I think is a cop out.
First time i heard of this movie, so i'm glad it seems like a winner
I loved Children of Men
Here's some interesting news about the next Star Wars movie:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22491025
To be filmed in the UK, apparently. I can only imagine that our CGI experts are the world leaders in lens flare effects...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-22491025
To be filmed in the UK, apparently. I can only imagine that our CGI experts are the world leaders in lens flare effects...
Most phasers are classified as particle weapons and fire nadion particle beams, (TNG: "The Mind's Eye"; VOY: "Time and Again", "Demon") but some like the Ferengi hand phaser are classified as plasma weapons and fire forced plasma beams. (TNG: "Descent") Based on the intensity and field of the beam and a variety of adjustments, a wide variety of effects can be achieved.
Well there is the semi-official explanation. It is the same thing as the fist fights in Star Trek. The whole thing is badly done as it isn't primarily a 'military style' show. It apparently has about 16 settings from low stun to overkill.
Tell your friends they need a physics class
You can't press your hand against the solar panels as you slide down without being pushed away from the panel. Anyway seriously the gravity is messed up.
Nadion particle beams ? If that is the case, people wouldn't call them phasers but nad-guns
Cheers
The animated movie told that story.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
That Riddick trailer looked to be one of those trailers that basically spoils the entire movie...
Billy Idol
Legend
Cool!
Star Trek Into Darkness
Really liked it Very similar to the previous one, but with more plot twists and a far far more memorable villain: Sherlock. I mean Cumberbatch.
(seriously, watch BBC's Sherclok NOW)
So if you liked the first then you'll like this one too. It's intense, spectacular, a real roller coaster ride, a little more of everything except a little less lens flares.
Unless you're a hardcore trekkie in which case you might get mad at it at a few points.
Some other criticisms:
Will be interesting to see a different director's take in 2016. Just make it more SF please.
Really liked it
Very similar to the previous one, but with more plot twists and a far far more memorable villain: Sherlock. I mean Cumberbatch.(seriously, watch BBC's Sherclok NOW)
So if you liked the first then you'll like this one too. It's intense, spectacular, a real roller coaster ride, a little more of everything except a little less lens flares.
Unless you're a hardcore trekkie in which case you might get mad at it at a few points.
Some other criticisms:
Abrams can't really handle a crew of this size, it's as if the Enterprise is only the guys on the bridge, the engineer, and lotsa redshirts. Actually, beyond the main three guys (which includes Sherlock) everyone else is kinda like an extra.
He also hasn't learned how to do a damn space battle. It's chaotic, tactics are from Galaxy Quest (shoot with the red ones, then the blue ones), ships are wrecked, lots of redshirts die horrible deaths, then when it seems they've lost, they trick the enemy and win.
But I think the reversals were clever and daring, I may not be a diehard Trek fan but I've seen lots and still it was cool. However I agree that the whole Khan reveal has almost no meaning at all for most of the audience, and every fan knew it from the start, so why the trickery?
He also hasn't learned how to do a damn space battle. It's chaotic, tactics are from Galaxy Quest (shoot with the red ones, then the blue ones), ships are wrecked, lots of redshirts die horrible deaths, then when it seems they've lost, they trick the enemy and win.
But I think the reversals were clever and daring, I may not be a diehard Trek fan but I've seen lots and still it was cool. However I agree that the whole Khan reveal has almost no meaning at all for most of the audience, and every fan knew it from the start, so why the trickery?
Will be interesting to see a different director's take in 2016. Just make it more SF please.
Pitch Black -> Riddick - > Riddick & Pitch Black in one
I was hoping Vin would do it sooner or later!
I watched django and hobbit last night, 7/10, and 5/10 respectively, was expecting better but can't complain for 2 dollars. Thanks red box.
Oh yea I also watched the cabin in the woods. It was a solid 7/10 as well if you like horror it was alot of fun. Plus its on Netflix instant so you don't even have to leave the house.
Oh yea I also watched the cabin in the woods. It was a solid 7/10 as well if you like horror it was alot of fun. Plus its on Netflix instant so you don't even have to leave the house.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
