The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny

I like CG for fully-animated movies like Pixar flicks, but CG objects and people just don't work yet. Nothing looks as good as a real object.

Roger Ebert calls it "more realistic but less convincing." Right on.
 
I watched Crash for the first time recently. I really liked it's perspective on stereotypes and racism. When you see the other side of the story sometimes you can really empathize with the characters. I like movies that pull that off convincingly without being ridiculous. I really liked the cast as well. To be honest there wasn't much I didn't like about the movie. It felt a little over dramatic at times, but not enough to complain about. I highly recommend it.

Holy shit! How did I miss From Beyond? Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crampton were instantly recognizable since I am a big Re-Animator fan. That automatically made me like it anyway. Adding Ken Foree from Dawn of the Dead really cut the cake though. The special effects were a little cheesy, but that is to be expected. They almost had a tentacle rape scene which is pretty disturbing. Overall I loved it. Not as good as Re-Animator, but not half bad. One of the better Lovecraft inspired flicks IMO. I didn't even know the same crew was involved until I checked the internet.

I love finding movies that I have missed.
 
UniversalWolf said:
Roger Ebert calls it "more realistic but less convincing." Right on.
Click to expand...
I think the problem with CGI is how it's never seamless, it's always obvious it's CGI, then instead of understating it, they have to hot dog it and hit you over the head with ridiculous, overly dense CGI porn. I know I'm old, but I actually liked the FX of old with miniatures and actual asplosions and shit or however they did (painted-in backgrounds had to go though). It had a depth, a tactile...ness. This flat, sterile digital shit is no substitute, and it's overly relied on. I liked movies with actual stuntmen getting thrown through glass windows, crashing cars and blowing shit up.
I have no emotional stake in CGI carnage and destruction. It's so over used.

The next thing has to be artificial CGI titties in movies instead of body doubles.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
UniversalWolf said:
Roger Ebert calls it "more realistic but less convincing." Right on.
Click to expand...
I think the problem with CGI is how it's never seamless, it's always obvious it's CGI, then instead of understating it, they have to hot dog it and hit you over the head with ridiculous, overly dense CGI porn. I know I'm old, but I actually liked the FX of old with miniatures and actual asplosions and shit or however they did (painted-in backgrounds had to go though). It had a depth, a tactile...ness. This flat, sterile digital shit is no substitute, and it's overly relied on. I liked movies with actual stuntmen getting thrown through glass windows, crashing cars and blowing shit up.
I have no emotional stake in CGI carnage and destruction. It's so over used.

The next thing has to be artificial CGI titties in movies instead of body doubles.
Click to expand...

absolutely. A New Hope straight up looks BETTER than any of the original 3. Hell, it even looks more realistic. And that was with $2 USD budget for effects.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
UniversalWolf said:
Roger Ebert calls it "more realistic but less convincing." Right on.
Click to expand...
I know I'm old, but I actually liked the FX of old with miniatures and actual asplosions and shit or however they did (painted-in backgrounds had to go though). It had a depth, a tactile...ness. This flat, sterile digital shit is no substitute, and it's overly relied on. I liked movies with actual stuntmen getting thrown through glass windows, crashing cars and blowing shit up.
Click to expand...
One movie that clinches it for me is Blade Runner. 1982? Gods, it looks better than any contemporary CG effects. Or check out Yoda from Empire side-by-side with Yoda from the newer movies. Not only that, but modern movies that use real objects look better than CG effects. Have you seen Coraline? Wow.

Another thing I've been noticing lately is how computer graphics have allowed the "camera" to move into humanly impossible positions like swooping, bird's-eye shots. The LotR movies have a lot of those. While I think that can be cool sometimes, overusing it also divorces the movie from realism and believability. There should be a reason for doing that beyond "isn't this cool!"
 
Just watched Stake Land. Pretty decent PA vampire flick. It does take itself a little too seriously though.
 
tumblr_lcgobfXCGb1qbn7ob.jpg


This was damn good.
 
Just saw monty python and the holy grail for the first time. Im not big on comedy movies/series in general but this one made me smile and even laugh a couple of times along the way. Seeing how its allready liked and highly appreciatied flick i guess my recommendations arent needed, besides i think its really difficult to suggest comedies to other people because of how our sense of humour is quite different from one person to another.
 
well if you enjoy such kind of movie then I recommend you The life of Brian. It is very similar to the holy grail (no surprise since its a python movie) but I think it is better.
 
Life of Brian actually had a better written story. It's still absurd Python fun, though. Both "Bwian" and Holy Grail are classics.
 
The King's Speech is a p-p-p-p-positively brilliant film.
Colin Firth is an amazing actor, and the whole film cast is top notch.
 
UniversalWolf said:
I like CG for fully-animated movies like Pixar flicks, but CG objects and people just don't work yet. Nothing looks as good as a real object.

Roger Ebert calls it "more realistic but less convincing." Right on.
Click to expand...

I think what you refer to is somewhat releated to the Uncanny_Valley

Mori_Uncanny_Valley.svg
 
maximaz said:
Saw Grey the other day. That rhymed. That movie got the *~~~""""""--->>>>>>SPOILER*~~~""""""--->>>>>> scariest plane crash I've ever witnessed on screen. That is all.
Click to expand...

Watched 'The Grey' last week and was impressed with how good it was compared to all the bad reviews and hype I have heard.

Don't miss this on the big screen because some critics missed the point of the movie...

I give it 4.2 out of five asshats....
 
Interesting. I was wondering about The Grey. Maybe I'll give it a look-see.

Crni Vuk said:
I think what you refer to is somewhat releated to the Uncanny_Valley
Click to expand...
Hmm...similar in a way, although there's nothing uncanny or unnerving about my reaction.

When you depict something from a vantage point no human could ever experience, it often makes that thing seem less real. There are obvious exceptions. I'm mainly thinking of buildings and landscapes. Such a fantastic vantage point creates an added layer of...perceptual suspension of belief.
 
I am watching Spiderman 2 right now. One of the better superhero flicks I think. Too bad they fucked up Spiderman 3 so bad. I hate when a trilogy ends on a bummer. It wasn't really Raimi's fault though because they forced him to alter the story in meaningless ways. They just had to have Venom in the movie, so they had to tack him onto the last half. They didn't even do Venom justice to begin with. They introduced Eddie Brock and then turned around and killed him.

I think The Amazing Spiderman is showing promise though.
 
DammitBoy said:
I give it 4.2 out of five asshats....
Click to expand...

Rather generous, I think. It certainly had its' moments but the package felt somewhat unsure of itself. I constantly felt that heavy hand of a worried producer pulling it back from what it was supposed to be. I was still pleasantly surprised to find the movie very different from what the trailer promised, even though I wouldn't mind that either, but I'd give it no more than a solid 3.
 
Watched The Shining a couple of days ago. Can someone recommend me some Psychological-Horror movies similar to this one? Something Stanley Kubrick-ish perhaps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top