FYI Broadchurch isn't a BBC series; it was broadcast on ITV.
Ahh, I guess the confusion is that it was bought by BBC America and, I assume, shown on their channel in the US.
Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
FYI Broadchurch isn't a BBC series; it was broadcast on ITV.
Ahh, I guess the confusion is that it was bought by BBC America and, I assume, shown on their channel in the US.
True. Damn did he grow fast though after Karate Kid.
Ha! Well his parents are both rich, spoiled celebrities, so what can you expect?
Yeah, that's gotta be the one. What's it like? If you've seen it, that is... (Thanks, by the way.)
I've not seen it yet but I think it's on Sky in a week or two so will definitely be watching it then.
Personally I think Elysium is a bit disappointing, edging towards rubbish. That's coming to it not knowing the book (or whatever) it's based on.
Sigfried1977
Legend
The Matt Damon one? Huge disappointment after the sublime District 9 indeed.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Guardians of the Galaxy is more like space opera, but you can't beat an angry raccoon with a big gun
There's also another Tom Cruise flick, Edge of Tomorrow - sort of Groundhog Day with a SF explanation and lots of combat against aliens.
Cannot wait for Guardians of the Galaxy. I'm completely burned out on comic book movies, but hey, Rocket Raccoon + James Gunn sounds like a winning combination to me. The fact that it's a pretty obscure franchise helps a lot as well.
The trailer released the other day for it was fantastic, better than anything DC has put out in years.
Amazes me how DC/Warner can't get Wonder Woman off the ground, can't get a decent Superman or even Green Lantern movie, and with the exception of the first two Nolan efforts can't even get a good Batman movie over the last 20+ years. In contrast Marvel isn't afraid to say, "hey, kids, this year we have for you a raccoon who likes big guns. Enjoy!"
Amazes me how DC/Warner can't get Wonder Woman off the ground, can't get a decent Superman or even Green Lantern movie, and with the exception of the first two Nolan efforts can't even get a good Batman movie over the last 20+ years. In contrast Marvel isn't afraid to say, "hey, kids, this year we have for you a raccoon who likes big guns. Enjoy!"
Really can't fathom how anyone can think the Dark Knight Rises isn't an amazing film. That trilogy got better with each iteration IMO.
I can't fathom how anyone can think Rises is better than The Dark Knight. I mean, hell, my 6yo son and I make fun of the third one all the time, covering our mouths and imitating Bane's silly voice. And, yeah, the US govt would just let a major city be overtaken by terrorists and sit back for months.
This to me says you missed the point.
No, the point is that Nolan was a bit of a dumbass when it came to certain voices in his Batman movies.
Saw Robocop (the reboot, although I feel kinda stupid for pointing that out), tonight. Thought it pretty much sucked, I'm afraid to say.
IMO, an action movie needs a strong protagonist-antagonist relationship, or else you don't really have an action movie. You had that in the original Robocop. Protagonists were easy; the Sarge, Lewis, even Bob the selfishly ruthless executive had a streak of humanity in him that made you like him in a way. Antagonists - even easier. Clarence of course, and then Emil, Joe and the other henchmen. Teh real Big Bad wasn't him though, although you only learned later just how bad he really was.
In the new Robo, you don't really have any real antagonist at all until very late in the movie except for the Boddicker-analogy whom as a badguy character is entirely forgettable (I can't even remember his name), and which you hardly even see for that matter. He's certainly never involved in anything even remotely as memorable as Murphy's execution in the original movie. ...And Gary Oldman's character, who's he? Friend, foe, inbetween? You don't learn that either until very late in the movie and it never feels very believable either.
This makes the plot feel sloppy - actually, is there even really a plot at all I'm tempted to ask, too much of the movie is simply taken up by re-building Murphy
, and then there's a deus ex machina moment when Robo
, a confusing CGI scene where he analyzes his
, a couple gunfights, another deus ex machina moment where Robo defies his programming
and then the movie is over. Where's the tension?!
Moreover - where's the HUMANITY?!
In the original, you did not even see Murphy's face until it was relevant in the plot. Here it is hanging front and center of the camera in almost every scene like that abomination version of Joe Dredd which Stallone did long ago now. The action sequences are nothing but a jumble of too-fast cuts, overdone stroboscopic flashes of squibs going off and CGI puppetry. Very unsatisfying and downright confusing at times. None of the action has any impact when few, if any cut is longer than say, five seconds.
You had the occasional nod to the original - none of it done very successfully IMO - and some scenes had a modicum of poignancy, but the social satire which made the original so deep despite its action movie packaging was largely MIA entirely apart from Sam Jackson's overexaggerated talkshow host which was just too over the top to really be believable...although when one considers Glenn Beck, maybe that's not both entrely true AND entirely true both at the same time.
Also got REEEAL tedious listening to that obnoxious THUDTHUDTHUD as Robo tromped around no matter what the surface he was walking on (to say nothing about the ED 209s.) In the original, at least the sound mixer had the werewithal to fade out the footsteps when the situation required it. Also, acting-wise, while he wasn't bad or anything, Joel Whatsisname... He's no Peter Weller for sure!
Also Keaton... Does he have to be so fking spazzy in EVERY movie he does...? Jee-zus. Take a ritalin for chrissakes, you're what now, almost sixty years old?
No, I did not like this one very much I'm afraid. Lightning did not strike twice for Ed Neumeier and Michael Miner. Maybe if Verhoeven had been involved also...? What a waste!
3/10
IMO, an action movie needs a strong protagonist-antagonist relationship, or else you don't really have an action movie. You had that in the original Robocop. Protagonists were easy; the Sarge, Lewis, even Bob the selfishly ruthless executive had a streak of humanity in him that made you like him in a way. Antagonists - even easier. Clarence of course, and then Emil, Joe and the other henchmen. Teh real Big Bad wasn't him though, although you only learned later just how bad he really was.
In the new Robo, you don't really have any real antagonist at all until very late in the movie except for the Boddicker-analogy whom as a badguy character is entirely forgettable (I can't even remember his name), and which you hardly even see for that matter. He's certainly never involved in anything even remotely as memorable as Murphy's execution in the original movie. ...And Gary Oldman's character, who's he? Friend, foe, inbetween? You don't learn that either until very late in the movie and it never feels very believable either.
This makes the plot feel sloppy - actually, is there even really a plot at all I'm tempted to ask, too much of the movie is simply taken up by re-building Murphy
and then deconstructing him again
regains his self-awareness for no apparant reason
own murder
again for no apparant reason and shoots Batman
Moreover - where's the HUMANITY?!
In the original, you did not even see Murphy's face until it was relevant in the plot. Here it is hanging front and center of the camera in almost every scene like that abomination version of Joe Dredd which Stallone did long ago now. The action sequences are nothing but a jumble of too-fast cuts, overdone stroboscopic flashes of squibs going off and CGI puppetry. Very unsatisfying and downright confusing at times. None of the action has any impact when few, if any cut is longer than say, five seconds.
You had the occasional nod to the original - none of it done very successfully IMO - and some scenes had a modicum of poignancy, but the social satire which made the original so deep despite its action movie packaging was largely MIA entirely apart from Sam Jackson's overexaggerated talkshow host which was just too over the top to really be believable...although when one considers Glenn Beck, maybe that's not both entrely true AND entirely true both at the same time.
Also got REEEAL tedious listening to that obnoxious THUDTHUDTHUD as Robo tromped around no matter what the surface he was walking on (to say nothing about the ED 209s.) In the original, at least the sound mixer had the werewithal to fade out the footsteps when the situation required it. Also, acting-wise, while he wasn't bad or anything, Joel Whatsisname... He's no Peter Weller for sure!
Also Keaton... Does he have to be so fking spazzy in EVERY movie he does...? Jee-zus. Take a ritalin for chrissakes, you're what now, almost sixty years old?
No, I did not like this one very much I'm afraid. Lightning did not strike twice for Ed Neumeier and Michael Miner. Maybe if Verhoeven had been involved also...? What a waste!
3/10
God you love to write, doncha! DONCHA!!!!
Everyone expected it to be crap. Everyone thinks it's crap. It's crap. NEXT!
Everyone expected it to be crap. Everyone thinks it's crap. It's crap. NEXT!
Oblivion is one of those movies that got a bad rep from the get go, and for many will be better thanks to lower expectations. I loved his partner, I wish she would swim naked more in their absurd above the ground pool. The designs were great, the sound and soundtrack was great. I simply enjoyed the atmosphere. My only small complaints was cruise a bit to much on his cruise control. And a plot I found to be a bit to easy.
I got the bluray and I think it's already cheap to get.
I got the bluray and I think it's already cheap to get.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Saw the new Riddick movie yesterday. Cheesy, gory, Sci-Fi B-movie fun. I quite liked it. It's basically outa space-Castaway with Vin Diesel, and instead of enjoying the company of a Volleyball, Riddick has an adorable bonding experience with a CGI Dingo dog. A Dingo Dog with ace of spades-shaped ears glistening in the evening sun no less - it's totally awesome. Later on the movie movie shifts gears and basically becomes Pitch Black all over again. This time the creatures emerge from the ground during rainfall, and whaddaya know, there's a ginormous thundercloud formation conveniently looming on the matte-painted horizon. I love creatures who apparently specialize on the feeding on offworlders exclusively, and only on the rarest of circumstances no less. Maybe merc ships attrackt rain. New Battlestar Galactica's Starbuck is in this too. She's pretty friggin' hot and she even shows off her Capricas. Also lots of Latino mercs on display. You can actually tell them apart too. They are all scared shitless because Riddick has the awesome power of scribbling on just about any flat surface you could possibly imagine. That is until he tricks them all by letting himself getting captured. What's not to like?
I also watched Gravity again. This time only in 2d, but having a projector at home goes a long way when it comes to preserving that cinematic experience. Love that movie. The Blu Ray also comes with some fantastic behind-the-scenes documentaries. The crew went through truly absurd lengths to get these brilliant images on screen.
I also watched Gravity again. This time only in 2d, but having a projector at home goes a long way when it comes to preserving that cinematic experience. Love that movie. The Blu Ray also comes with some fantastic behind-the-scenes documentaries. The crew went through truly absurd lengths to get these brilliant images on screen.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sigfried1977
Legend
Because every DC character except for the Batman seems to be a stoic and rather quite boring god-like character I guess. What's DC's answer to Howard the Duck?
Why is it that a movie like Gremlins, which was all puppets and practical effects, manages to slay all its recent CGI brethren?
Yes, you can do a lot more with CGI (although the puppets in Gremlins actually manage to do quite a lot), but maybe "a lot more" simply is TOO MUCH?
Yoda went from a dignified elderly character to some bizarre bouncy-ball in the (nowadays only somewhat) recent Star Wars movies, and often faces and expressions just turn out wrong (as in the disastrous 20th anniversary of E.T.) or are too exaggerated, like comic book characters.
Do actors react more believably and realistically to a puppet than to a ping-pong ball on a stick for eyeline reference which then gets painted over in post-process with an imaginary, virtual CGI abomination? Perhaps the limitations of puppets were what made them 'alive'. I would have said 'realistic' but then hesitated, because they really aren't. The movie's fairly low-budget (for its time, naturally), and puppets have strict limits of course, they're cable controlled, can't move very much or very well and so on, but the actors emote to them. And not just Cory Feldman by the way, who's like, what, eleven-twelve at the time...?
Or am I looking at this thirty years old movie through rose colored glasses? I dunno. I just think its production values beat pretty much any CGI puppet movie made since...ever. Oh, and this movie's pretty gruesome. You couldn't make a kids' movie like this today. You have alcoholism in it, and one of the main characters discusses christmas suicides and slitting wrists and whatnot. Jesus. Oh, and how her dad was found in their chimney wearing a santy outfit and his neck broken. ...Although I think you're supposed to laugh at that, because of how her hate of christmas had been built up over the course of the movie. Egads. Yeah, like full-frontal nudity, which existed in american movies throughout the seventies, you can't have stuff like this anymore.
Hah.
Yes, you can do a lot more with CGI (although the puppets in Gremlins actually manage to do quite a lot), but maybe "a lot more" simply is TOO MUCH?
Yoda went from a dignified elderly character to some bizarre bouncy-ball in the (nowadays only somewhat) recent Star Wars movies, and often faces and expressions just turn out wrong (as in the disastrous 20th anniversary of E.T.) or are too exaggerated, like comic book characters.
Do actors react more believably and realistically to a puppet than to a ping-pong ball on a stick for eyeline reference which then gets painted over in post-process with an imaginary, virtual CGI abomination? Perhaps the limitations of puppets were what made them 'alive'. I would have said 'realistic' but then hesitated, because they really aren't. The movie's fairly low-budget (for its time, naturally), and puppets have strict limits of course, they're cable controlled, can't move very much or very well and so on, but the actors emote to them. And not just Cory Feldman by the way, who's like, what, eleven-twelve at the time...?
Or am I looking at this thirty years old movie through rose colored glasses? I dunno. I just think its production values beat pretty much any CGI puppet movie made since...ever. Oh, and this movie's pretty gruesome. You couldn't make a kids' movie like this today. You have alcoholism in it, and one of the main characters discusses christmas suicides and slitting wrists and whatnot. Jesus. Oh, and how her dad was found in their chimney wearing a santy outfit and his neck broken. ...Although I think you're supposed to laugh at that, because of how her hate of christmas had been built up over the course of the movie. Egads. Yeah, like full-frontal nudity, which existed in american movies throughout the seventies, you can't have stuff like this anymore.
Hah.
Similar threads
