yes esp last action hero was unfairly maligned
Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Well since high school kids used to always be played by 29 year old actors that is nothing new.
I watched Maggie and definitely shows off the non-action less Hollywood style of Arnold that is refreshing for him. Yes it's quite a sad movie but worth it.There's always been a bit of method actor in Arnold. He does take his craft more seriously than most ever gave him credit for.
Have any of you guys seen that recent-ish zombie movie of his? I heard it is supposed to be good (one of his best performances ever supposedly), but the premise sounded so sad I don't know if I could watch it... [emoji14]
Just saw The Interview. I'm not sure why it was so heavily criticized, I thought it was awesome!
We've just seen Everst, in 3D but not IMAX.
As for the visuals, there certainly are some, but obviously very little of it is actual real footage. It's also not what's the movie's about... but then again, it's kinda hard to define that either.
I mean, it's a normal length movie, and telling everything about that day on Everest would be impossible in such a short time. Neither is it really possible to get into the physical, mental and emotional depths of mountain climbing. Make no mistake - it does what it can, and reasonably well, but it's less than half of the story, and probably even less of the other things.
Still, I think that it is a pretty good insight to this world, as far as a high budget movie can go. Hopefully it'll drive a lot of its viewers to get deeper into this, read up on the real life events, the actual conditions and challenges, and maybe even create a small impression of the nature of it all. But on its own, it's probably still quite easy to dismiss the whole thing as a story of "why did they go there at all" or something like that.
Keep in mind that I've read about this event way before the movie started filming; and also that one of my close friends have actually made a trek in the Himalayas a few years ago, traveling up to the base camp. His stories about the trip have probably given me some extra insight; and fortunately he was there with us seeing the movie.
Also, while he's not a mountaineer (he's more into paragliding now) he did climb Mont Blanc some years ago as well.
And lastly, about 1.5 years ago we've been on a company hiking trip in Austria where we've had some pretty bad guides and got caught in a blizzard on top of the hill - I'm still not sure about how dangerous it actually was, but I do know that even while I'm relatively fit it was nevertheless quite an extreme situation. So I can kinda imagine how badly I'd fail at any serious climbing, how far beyond us anything related to Everest has to be.
As for the visuals, there certainly are some, but obviously very little of it is actual real footage. It's also not what's the movie's about... but then again, it's kinda hard to define that either.
I mean, it's a normal length movie, and telling everything about that day on Everest would be impossible in such a short time. Neither is it really possible to get into the physical, mental and emotional depths of mountain climbing. Make no mistake - it does what it can, and reasonably well, but it's less than half of the story, and probably even less of the other things.
Still, I think that it is a pretty good insight to this world, as far as a high budget movie can go. Hopefully it'll drive a lot of its viewers to get deeper into this, read up on the real life events, the actual conditions and challenges, and maybe even create a small impression of the nature of it all. But on its own, it's probably still quite easy to dismiss the whole thing as a story of "why did they go there at all" or something like that.
Keep in mind that I've read about this event way before the movie started filming; and also that one of my close friends have actually made a trek in the Himalayas a few years ago, traveling up to the base camp. His stories about the trip have probably given me some extra insight; and fortunately he was there with us seeing the movie.
Also, while he's not a mountaineer (he's more into paragliding now) he did climb Mont Blanc some years ago as well.
And lastly, about 1.5 years ago we've been on a company hiking trip in Austria where we've had some pretty bad guides and got caught in a blizzard on top of the hill - I'm still not sure about how dangerous it actually was, but I do know that even while I'm relatively fit it was nevertheless quite an extreme situation. So I can kinda imagine how badly I'd fail at any serious climbing, how far beyond us anything related to Everest has to be.
I read the plot summary on Wiki 'bout a week ago, and I don't think I should watch it, even though I really want to. I've already got enough depression problems in my life, don't need a movie exacerbating it.
lolYeah it absolutely did for me. Climbing is something I've had a casual interest in for a while but this certainly gave it a shot in the arm. I'm just struggling to find anyone to do it with atm. Sure I can do it alone but I fancy starting at one of those indoor climbing centers and that feels like something that I should do with a mate. I should probably just do it.
I think anyone that's going to ask that question was never going to understand the answer in the first place.
This sounds like a pretty realistic goal. I'll never get to the top because I'm not willing to dedicate a large chunk of my life to climbing or my funds to paying for it. But base camp may be doable at some point.
I can really emphathize with that.I've already got enough depression problems in my life, don't need a movie exacerbating it.
Considering just buying it, and just sticking it on my movie shelf... I've done it with other movies, heh, going like, "well, maybe I'll watch it later", and then never getting around to it.
Well if you're interested, here are some things I've gathered from his stories.
The trek was something like 12-14 days long, I think it starts from Lukla? Whatever that place is with the high-altitude airport. There's a relatively small mountain you can reach from the base camp which was the final goal of their trip, 5100-5200 meters high.
Altitude sickness has to be the worst part. You should really prepare for it as best as you can; try to make some trips to something like 3000m or so in your area. Certainly not Mont Blanc but whatever you can find, in order to get used to it. My friend experienced a lot of the bad stuff - headaches, lack of appetite, lack of sleep, nausea, and so on. He lost something like 9kgs in that time, from 90 to 81kgs. They've had to force themselves to eat Snickers and drink Coke to get enough calories to go on.
You also can't wash yourself and it's pretty hard. He said he paid an incredible sum of money for a single cold shower at something like 4000m and yet it was worth it.
The cold is also very bad, there are some places to sleep along the route but mostly it's literally a wooden house that the wind blows through all the time. He slept in his bag with a flask to urinate into, because going out was so bad.
Then again he said the views were worth it, no question He also wasn't as prepared, they only took a few treks into Austria at 2000+m high places before but that was all. He's gotten a lot tougher and leaner in the past years (nowadays he routinely goes on 20+km runs in the hills around Budapest) so I'm quite sure he'd do a lot better in his current condition. Still, it's probably quite a mental challenge to go on; most of their party did not even make it to the base camp...
I sometimes also feel like it'd be a real experience but I think I'm now getting a bit too old for this at 37. My endurance has never really been that good - I did ran a half-marathon some years ago and did 28kms in another run in two parts, but it was really painful and I'm more focused on strength training nowadays anyway. Still, who knows...
The trek was something like 12-14 days long, I think it starts from Lukla? Whatever that place is with the high-altitude airport. There's a relatively small mountain you can reach from the base camp which was the final goal of their trip, 5100-5200 meters high.
Altitude sickness has to be the worst part. You should really prepare for it as best as you can; try to make some trips to something like 3000m or so in your area. Certainly not Mont Blanc
but whatever you can find, in order to get used to it. My friend experienced a lot of the bad stuff - headaches, lack of appetite, lack of sleep, nausea, and so on. He lost something like 9kgs in that time, from 90 to 81kgs. They've had to force themselves to eat Snickers and drink Coke to get enough calories to go on.You also can't wash yourself and it's pretty hard. He said he paid an incredible sum of money for a single cold shower at something like 4000m and yet it was worth it.
The cold is also very bad, there are some places to sleep along the route but mostly it's literally a wooden house that the wind blows through all the time. He slept in his bag with a flask to urinate into, because going out was so bad.
Then again he said the views were worth it, no question
He also wasn't as prepared, they only took a few treks into Austria at 2000+m high places before but that was all. He's gotten a lot tougher and leaner in the past years (nowadays he routinely goes on 20+km runs in the hills around Budapest) so I'm quite sure he'd do a lot better in his current condition. Still, it's probably quite a mental challenge to go on; most of their party did not even make it to the base camp...I sometimes also feel like it'd be a real experience but I think I'm now getting a bit too old for this at 37. My endurance has never really been that good - I did ran a half-marathon some years ago and did 28kms in another run in two parts, but it was really painful and I'm more focused on strength training nowadays anyway. Still, who knows...
Cheers, some really good insights there, I'm not sure why but that all makes me want to do it more! Training may be tricky considering I'm in the UK where the tallest mountain is about 1300m and has disabled access... Guess I'll need to make a few dedicated climbing trips if I'm serious about getting to base camp. I had no idea it was such a challenge to get even that far tbh but it sounds like a great experience. I'm 35 myself so not exactly flush on time but I like to kid myself I'll be fine for a decade or two yet for this kind of thing.
So I take it the Scottish highlands sort of overstate their own importance then, eh?
The thing with altitude sickness is that you can be as fit as a fiddle yet still suffer potentially life-threatening problems. On the other hand, you could be a real couch potato yet have no problems. It's all down to genetics.
My cousin trekked up to Everest base camp around ten years ago as part of an organised expedition and one of the members of his group had to be evacuated by helicopter because she was close to death. Her lungs just filled up with fluid and it was touch and go whether or not she would survive. My cousin felt a little bit sick at times but otherwise got through it unscathed.
My cousin trekked up to Everest base camp around ten years ago as part of an organised expedition and one of the members of his group had to be evacuated by helicopter because she was close to death. Her lungs just filled up with fluid and it was touch and go whether or not she would survive. My cousin felt a little bit sick at times but otherwise got through it unscathed.
Jurassic World: 9/10 (*)
One of the best dinosaurs have been re-created by the amazing powers of genetic engineering but something seems to have gone wrong because we're silly movies I've seen this week (**). I don't know who the leading actor was (the bloke, Chris ... something), but the leading girl was quite nice, if a little bit ginger for my personal tastes.
More importantly, my other half turned to me asked why, after four movies on this theme, they hadn't figured out that dinosaurs are dangerous and best avoided. I didn't have an answer for this. I feel that I should be better informed regarding the dangers of movie dinosaurs. The government needs to act, IMO.
(*) not really
(**) this statement may contain lies
One of the best dinosaurs have been re-created by the amazing powers of genetic engineering but something seems to have gone wrong because we're silly movies I've seen this week (**). I don't know who the leading actor was (the bloke, Chris ... something), but the leading girl was quite nice, if a little bit ginger for my personal tastes.
More importantly, my other half turned to me asked why, after four movies on this theme, they hadn't figured out that dinosaurs are dangerous and best avoided. I didn't have an answer for this. I feel that I should be better informed regarding the dangers of movie dinosaurs. The government needs to act, IMO.
(*) not really
(**) this statement may contain lies
Oooooooooookkkaayy....so....uh, you didn't really like it then, what?
I'm about 33 mins into San Andreas btw, and it's really really bad. Like, almost total stinker bad. The CGI SFX is recognizably fake CGI oftentimes, ridiculously predictable (running guy being chased by cracks in the pavement... How many times have we seen this stupid shit? GODDAMN SENTIENT CRACKS, PEOPLE!
), and the dialogue some monkey banging on typewriters created is so dumb I'm bored to tears every time two people talk to each other. Also: terrible, bad hollywood science.Not as god-awful as in Armageddon perhaps, but pretty damn bad all the same.
Oh, and the college-aged daughter is noticeably too old for being in college, but who really cares, right? It's literally the least important complaint about this whole silly movie.
Uh-oh, London-boy is not going to be happy about this.
There is a documentary that reenacts a real mountain adventure that went south. It was really amazing ... I think it is on YouTube and Netflix or something. Watched it twice. I'm sure someone here remembers the name ....
Similar threads
