I liked the first Prometheus. I was at that waterfall that he seeds with DNA from the start earlier this year. It's pretty impressive!
Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
I liked the experience of Prometheus. The visual design was gorgeous, as was the photography, I loved the feeling of discovery; seeing a new world with new things for the first time, and there were some good tension and suspense moments too. However, the plot itself was rubbish, the science was rubbish and there was no logic in it (dumb extras getting themselves killed by trying to befriend penis-worms, Charlize Theron trying to out-run a rolling gigantic spaceship, and many other things.)
I would very much look forward to another movie though. I hope Ridley doesn't croak before he has a chance to make it though, he's getting a bit old by now...
It was indeed. Dettifoss.
Yep, I agree entirely with this. I was quite excited by the film up to the point where they got to the new planet but it all went a bit pear-shaped after that! I hope they come up with something a bit more intelligent for the sequel.
I wish Ridley hadn't killed off Theron's character. She kicked ass. She reminded me a lot of Ripley actually, in that she's abrasive at times but very competent and brave. Theron's character was quite a bit more psychotic than Ripley ever was though... Anyway, I think they could have done a lot with that character in a sequel if it hadn't met such a ridiculous demise.
Seriously, running in front of something that's way bigger and faster than you; american movies and TV shows have worn out that trope decades ago yet here it was again in Prometheus. One of my biggest disappointments with the movie actually. Not initially, because the woman was such a monumental cunt, but afterwards when I'd had a chance to think about it I came to regret her passing.
Also, Theron's such a magnificient actress. Supreme screen presence; she's very very good. Only movie I haven't enjoyed her performance immensely was Snow White, and that was because it was such a dumb movie that I just couldn't finish watching it.
Anyway, I think they could have done a lot with that character in a sequel if it hadn't met such a ridiculous demise.Seriously, running in front of something that's way bigger and faster than you; american movies and TV shows have worn out that trope decades ago yet here it was again in Prometheus. One of my biggest disappointments with the movie actually. Not initially, because the woman was such a monumental cunt, but afterwards when I'd had a chance to think about it I came to regret her passing.
Also, Theron's such a magnificient actress. Supreme screen presence; she's very very good. Only movie I haven't enjoyed her performance immensely was Snow White, and that was because it was such a dumb movie that I just couldn't finish watching it.
Charlize Theron is one of those very few actresses that actually kinda scare me in any role she is in. She's absolutely gorgeous but has that icy beauty and strength that scares me to death. No idea why.
I agree I think she's stunning. I've read that she had a rather challenging upbringing, which might explain something about her ability to act the scary.
She can do the crazy-eyes that Jack Nicholson, Mel Gibson and a couple other actors are good at. There's a couple Swedish actors that can also do crazy-eyes, including this one guy, Lennart Jähkel, who's just super freaking scary good at it. The kind of crazy-eyed person that if you stop to pick up a hitch-hiker and you see a face like that you immediately floor the gas pedal.
If you get the chance to see this movie he's in, Jägarna (Hunters), it's a great thriller type of movie in a very different environment than many other such movies; the deep forests of northern Sweden. Tragic in a way, keeps to the spirit of the people of that region; melancholy and depression...
Watched Mad Max: Fury Road for the first time during the weekend on the recently released Blu-Ray edition, and damn.
What a ride!
I understand all the praise this movie received when it was still in cinemas. It's a real masterpiece, as far as post-apocalyptic action and road movies go. I've seen little, if anything, quite like it actually. Visual design, choreography, photography... It all sings in beautiful harmony to create something quite extraordinary and unique.
Having seen all of the previous Mad Maxes (long, long ago now), I knew what to expect, sort of. Except...I didn't. This is something different, even more unique. The society, the religious iconography and worship that both deify the vehicles themselves in a way and sprinkle the worshipping with car-related terminology and expressions... It's utterly mad, and quite unique. Max himself actually seems to be one of the saner individuals in this epic saga!
Another thing too; under the action movie exterior bodywork there's a deeper, darker layer of slavery and human trafficking that you don't quite have time to explore to its full extent in an action movie of course, but it's there - on full display - and it lends drama and seriousness to the story like little else possibly could. There's some fantastic tension created knowing what's at stake here, the lives of not just Max and Furiosa, but also the innocent women victims they're escorting, as they're trying to fight their way to freedom.
This is all driven by a magnificient Big Bad, with a prepostrously pompous, yet brilliantly fitting name - Immortan Joe. We don't get to learn that much about him or who he is; mostly only that he's king and ruler absolute of his domain, almost a god unto himself in the eyes of his subjects, but we don't really need to know any more either. And he's also a menacing spectre haunting the other main characters for most of the movie, making him visible and present. The hero characters don't squeeze him out to the sidelines, he's there, he's in the thick of the action. He's not a spider in the web type badguy pulling strings, he's a hands-on badguy, and that makes him even more satisfying; especially considering his disgusting physical condition and also the fact he's not only menacing but also quite competent and very very tenacious.
Tom Hardy is a little flat as a (mostly) silent action hero type character I think. It could be because he doesn't speak much, but Charlize Theron does seem to take the bigger seat of the two of them. Or perhaps it's just that Tom's better as a more brainy type of movie character - I thought he was great both in Star Trek: Nemesis and also in Inception. As Bane - not so much really. Maybe I'm slightly biased against him as an action movie star because of his unfortunate role in Dark Knight Rises...
Also, there's little in the way of comic relief, which is good. Generally I fucking hate comic relief characters and moments (which is why T2 was not as good a movie as its predecessor), and it's a stupid idea you need that shit in the first place, as it destroys the movie's credibility. In real life there's no comic relief; if you want to make a funny movie then make a comedy. Here, there's Nux, who is slightly incompetent and bumbling in a way, but it's not so much that he's a comic relief but rather more that he turns out to have a human heart beating in him after all; he hadn't all been taken over by Immortan Joe.
So in conclusion, very very good movie. Very tense at times, being backed by those stunning visuals of nature consisting of utter desolation and a masterful musical score. Very edge-of-the-seat-like. NOT for kids I would say. I used to think action movies can't damage people, but shit, I dunno. The ones we get these days are so crazy realistic and brutally harsh; the stunts we had in '80s movies were nothing like this. Fury Road brings the violence to an epic scale I've only rarely seen before.
Anyone who didn't see it before, Go Do So Now! Or else you're crazy! Heh.
What a ride!
I understand all the praise this movie received when it was still in cinemas. It's a real masterpiece, as far as post-apocalyptic action and road movies go. I've seen little, if anything, quite like it actually. Visual design, choreography, photography... It all sings in beautiful harmony to create something quite extraordinary and unique.
Having seen all of the previous Mad Maxes (long, long ago now), I knew what to expect, sort of. Except...I didn't. This is something different, even more unique. The society, the religious iconography and worship that both deify the vehicles themselves in a way and sprinkle the worshipping with car-related terminology and expressions... It's utterly mad, and quite unique. Max himself actually seems to be one of the saner individuals in this epic saga!
Another thing too; under the action movie exterior bodywork there's a deeper, darker layer of slavery and human trafficking that you don't quite have time to explore to its full extent in an action movie of course, but it's there - on full display - and it lends drama and seriousness to the story like little else possibly could. There's some fantastic tension created knowing what's at stake here, the lives of not just Max and Furiosa, but also the innocent women victims they're escorting, as they're trying to fight their way to freedom.
This is all driven by a magnificient Big Bad, with a prepostrously pompous, yet brilliantly fitting name - Immortan Joe. We don't get to learn that much about him or who he is; mostly only that he's king and ruler absolute of his domain, almost a god unto himself in the eyes of his subjects, but we don't really need to know any more either. And he's also a menacing spectre haunting the other main characters for most of the movie, making him visible and present. The hero characters don't squeeze him out to the sidelines, he's there, he's in the thick of the action. He's not a spider in the web type badguy pulling strings, he's a hands-on badguy, and that makes him even more satisfying; especially considering his disgusting physical condition and also the fact he's not only menacing but also quite competent and very very tenacious.
Tom Hardy is a little flat as a (mostly) silent action hero type character I think. It could be because he doesn't speak much, but Charlize Theron does seem to take the bigger seat of the two of them. Or perhaps it's just that Tom's better as a more brainy type of movie character - I thought he was great both in Star Trek: Nemesis and also in Inception. As Bane - not so much really. Maybe I'm slightly biased against him as an action movie star because of his unfortunate role in Dark Knight Rises...
Also, there's little in the way of comic relief, which is good. Generally I fucking hate comic relief characters and moments (which is why T2 was not as good a movie as its predecessor), and it's a stupid idea you need that shit in the first place, as it destroys the movie's credibility. In real life there's no comic relief; if you want to make a funny movie then make a comedy. Here, there's Nux, who is slightly incompetent and bumbling in a way, but it's not so much that he's a comic relief but rather more that he turns out to have a human heart beating in him after all; he hadn't all been taken over by Immortan Joe.
So in conclusion, very very good movie. Very tense at times, being backed by those stunning visuals of nature consisting of utter desolation and a masterful musical score. Very edge-of-the-seat-like. NOT for kids I would say. I used to think action movies can't damage people, but shit, I dunno. The ones we get these days are so crazy realistic and brutally harsh; the stunts we had in '80s movies were nothing like this. Fury Road brings the violence to an epic scale I've only rarely seen before.
Anyone who didn't see it before, Go Do So Now!
Or else you're crazy! Heh.Sigfried1977
Legend
Finally Inside Out has arrived in German theaters.
What a smart and delightful movie. Pixar hasn't been anywhere near that level since Up. Just like with the director's last Pixar movie Wall-E, I'm kinda wondering why they felt the need to wedge a concept as profound and arguably complex as this into the framework of a standard kiddie flic. It's bright and shiny, sure. But otherwise I feel there's very little there for the little ones.
If there's one studio out there that could get away with releasing a thoroughly mature feature length animated movie, it's certainly Pixar.
What a smart and delightful movie. Pixar hasn't been anywhere near that level since Up. Just like with the director's last Pixar movie Wall-E, I'm kinda wondering why they felt the need to wedge a concept as profound and arguably complex as this into the framework of a standard kiddie flic. It's bright and shiny, sure. But otherwise I feel there's very little there for the little ones.
If there's one studio out there that could get away with releasing a thoroughly mature feature length animated movie, it's certainly Pixar.
I watched The Martian on Friday - coming into it relatively "clean", i.e. I've not read the book and didn't pay much attention to the run-up, other than noting a few reviews saying its pretty good. I have to say I loved the movie. It was a little baggy and some of the things in the final act felt like a bit of a stretch, but overall it was a great watch. While watching I felt this was closest in feel to Apollo 13, but with way more levity; if the "Mark Watney" character was initially written with a more pessimistic attitude I don't think this would have come off anywhere near as well. Must see film, IMO.
Having seen it in the Cinema I bought the Blu-ray, watch it then watched the extras an realised I needed to watch it again straight away. I like Tom Hardy's performance here - its actually amazing what can be conveyed with a grunt.Anyone who didn't see it before, Go Do So Now!
Ghibli has been doing that for ages.
Ghibli has been doing that for ages.
I think it is partly because she can like no other express dying and then being dead without her hart stopping. She takes that anguish leading to cold, dead anger that Michelle Pfeiffer had at the end of that witches movie about the star falling to earth when all her sisters were dead and brings it up a logarithmic scale.
Yeah, Watney's personality is an important element of the book too; however the movie, or rather Matt Damon, manages to add those finer touches that couldn't come through in what are basically log entries with internal monologues.
As for the possible issues, there really is only one for me...
You can easily tell that the entire story, in particular the science of it, was basically reverse engineered. Starting from how much time the Hermes would need to make another round trip to Mars, how it has to use ion engines* so that fuel is not a concern, how big the original crew should be to have enough supplies for 1 person before the potatoes can grow, where the Hub should be for Watney to be able to reach Pathfinder etc. etc.
Of course this is just a minor thing, and one can only appreciate the mental effort to make sure that the numbers add up. Still, this is a big difference compared to the Apollo 13 incident, where it was just luck that the resources remaining after the explosion were enough to bring the crew back. And on the other hand, it does make some sense for NASA to design the mission parameters in a way that has some reserves for such contingencies.
*The movie skips this detail, however this is why the crew can simply chose to take a longer trip. I think you can notice that the thrusters are constantly on instead of making short burns, so the ship is not using chemical rockets. Of course this is also why they can afford to do the breaking in Mars orbit without risking their return to Earth. So it's in there, and maybe the extra material online has an explicit description too... And then again most of the audience wouldn't know the difference anyway
Of course this is just a minor thing, and one can only appreciate the mental effort to make sure that the numbers add up. Still, this is a big difference compared to the Apollo 13 incident, where it was just luck that the resources remaining after the explosion were enough to bring the crew back. And on the other hand, it does make some sense for NASA to design the mission parameters in a way that has some reserves for such contingencies.
*The movie skips this detail, however this is why the crew can simply chose to take a longer trip. I think you can notice that the thrusters are constantly on instead of making short burns, so the ship is not using chemical rockets. Of course this is also why they can afford to do the breaking in Mars orbit without risking their return to Earth. So it's in there, and maybe the extra material online has an explicit description too... And then again most of the audience wouldn't know the difference anyway
Similar threads
