The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny
- Thread starter Serge 13
- Start date
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
How can you notice if they looked fake? I think most of us were just giggling like kids because of the action rather than paying attention to the background.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
A lot of show do that, especially backdated stuff. Like Boardwalk Empire. You ever watch Boardwalk Empire? That show is shot in front of shitloads of green screens and it all came out very well. I never really thought of it until it was pointed out to me.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Verd1234 said:
Actually a lot of Avengers was filmed in New York.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I saw Winter's Bone and it was pretty good.
Just noticed "Five broken cameras" was nominated, but didn't win. I saw this one on tv some months ago, and found it interesting.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
So I recently saw the Bourne: Legacy. With the folks, you see. Because it's hard for us together to agree on watching anything that isn't quite generic. But this movie had some inklings of good ideas but the execution was baffling. Not just bad in itself but just bafflingly unprofessional and without structure. Without any proper stucture. The story had few themes or conflicts of much interest set up, but they didn't resolve them. At all. The ending was simply a finish to the action only. They were on a boat away to who knows where after the final action set piece and the credits roll.
Edward Norton is the "villain" if you can call him that, who chases Jeremy Renner and they do not ever meet face to face in the movie nor are they even ever in the same location.
The chase the whole movie is centered around is only ended because the movie is over. There was no event that caused this chase to end. It's over because they say so.
They completely missed something so basic that it was very surprising, to say the least. I was shocked to see the credits come up.
But now I guess. . . . it's sequel time?
Another round of completely unquestionably unbiased super deserving Oscars. But I don't much care for the Oscars or any awards show anymore. Since I never agree with the nominations in any case. But I do care that lesser known movies that I think stand out get the attention they deserve. That's why I wish Intouchablés was at the very least nominated. But alas, it got snubbed.
Edward Norton is the "villain" if you can call him that, who chases Jeremy Renner and they do not ever meet face to face in the movie nor are they even ever in the same location.
The chase the whole movie is centered around is only ended because the movie is over. There was no event that caused this chase to end. It's over because they say so.
They completely missed something so basic that it was very surprising, to say the least. I was shocked to see the credits come up.
But now I guess. . . . it's sequel time?
zegh8578 said:
Another round of completely unquestionably unbiased super deserving Oscars. But I don't much care for the Oscars or any awards show anymore. Since I never agree with the nominations in any case. But I do care that lesser known movies that I think stand out get the attention they deserve. That's why I wish Intouchablés was at the very least nominated. But alas, it got snubbed.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Akratus said:
I agree with the Bourne comments. Me and my friend were like...
"It's over?"
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Sub-Human said:
Crank is far lower than Fight Club. Movies get bonus points for great stories, dialogue, reveals, characters etcetera.
Are you really seriously surprised I have movies without a notably great or unique story way down on a list of a hundred movies?
There are not enough movies like that in existence, from what I've seen.
And Crank is a really fun movie. Sometimes a movie can be just fun, and be good on that merit alone.
I really like human emotions and interactions in my movie, but I can really like almost any element in a movie if it's done well. Why would you preclude very high quality in a movie just because there's no group dialogue, or reveals, or emotional breakdowns, or characters raging at eachother or loving each other?
There is no movie that has beaten the Lord of the Ring's visual world. Look up the making of. The art, huge miniatures (bigatures), clay figures, prosthethics, makeup, puppets, cgi, actual jewelry and metal smithing(!), armor designs (there are something like a hundred different orc helmets alone), details, clothing and overal artistry made to bring Middle-Earth to life is insane.
There's leaf shaped imprints on the fecking inside of Theoden's armor.
Now I know you might want to make the argument that it does not add to the story, these things, but for me it does. It enhances it. If Frodo was a grey blob, I wouldn't experience his acting/dialogue and such in the same way.
The fact that they made enough artistic works to literally let you be in a world of real, defined, cultures and people is a monumental achievement.
Don't think I'm at all mad or trying to say: "Stop liking what I don't like!" I've just watched the making of of this trilogy about 7 or 8 times already, so any time I can talk about it at length, I will.
I guess you see it from the point of view that the characters aren't that great or human, and that the story adaptation wasn't done very well. And I agree. Gimli is a shamble of a character. As well as merry and pippin. But there's just this kid inside of me that loves all the above crap too much.
And that kid is the reason I have the Dark Crystal at the top of my list, and why Iron Man is in it, and the Avengers, and kill bill, and etc etc.
But the things from two paragraphs back are true as well for me. Which is why I like the Fellowship of the Ring much more than the Two Towers or Return of the King. It focuses on the characters and story more. The spectacle gets in the way later on. I think I shall reorganize my top 100 for the 51th time to accomodate that. . .
Am I rambling? I'm rambling . . . .
Saw Les Miserables recently. I'm left with a curiousity for the novel now, cus a lot didn't make sense to me.
Did the cop kill himself cus he failed to arrest ONE guy!? Damn.
Also, I didn't appreciate the "comedic relief" moments in it :I
Did the cop kill himself cus he failed to arrest ONE guy!? Damn.
Also, I didn't appreciate the "comedic relief" moments in it :I
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
I just watched Battleship. There are not words.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
zegh8578 said:
Well no, it's because he spent years chasing an ultimately innocent man. That's what I got from the books, anyhow, didn't see the newest movie. The book is kinda hard to read, especially since I'd wager some things are lost in translation. Even in original French it can become quite obtuse, but that's Victor Hugo for ya.
I saw the trailer, then read the synnopsis, then when people told me it sucked, I said ''what the hell did you expect?''. Seriously this had BAD MOVIE strung in neon letters above it. Not even guilty pleasure like Street Fighter or anything. Just plain bad.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
It's a really "fun" movie if you know nothing about ships, the Navy, logic or anything. There'd probably be drinking games for it but you're liable to die of alcohol poisoning.
That said, it's gotta be a great movie to watch after a couple of drinks and/or bowls.
That said, it's gotta be a great movie to watch after a couple of drinks and/or bowls.
Ilosar said:
That is precisely what I was thinking would be much more logical. That he realizes he is chasing an innocent man, and cannot live with himself. Suicide still a bit harsh, but at least it makes sense. From my deduction of the movie, the lyrics written for the songs, it seemed like he was obsessed with hunting down and arresting this man, and commited suicide out of failure to comply. It seemed very... excessively dedicated.
It was a feeling I had throughout the movie, that a litterary work so acclaimed as Les Miserables cannot possibly be as trivial and banal as the movie made it seem :I And it made me very curious about the original litterature.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
zegh8578 said:
It's quite a reaction, I'll grant you that. But remember, to Javert his job and justice is everything. And he comes to realise his job is shitty and brings no justice (the book was written in part to denounce the absolutely ridiculous system in France at the time; Victor Hugo was pretty big on such issues). His feelings are of course far more detailled in the books, as I'd imagine most things are; you can't expect to cram as much content in 3 hours of movie as in the utter doorstopper that is Les Misérables.
Ilosar said:
Yes, naturally, that was the impression I was allready getting from the story itself, and something I was expecting to be presented more clearly through their songs.
In other words, the movie is just as much Hollywood-trash as the rest, just with singing this time.
I realized this as well, while watching... And I was recalling my careful optimism about the movie while watching the trailer with a friend, and he sneered and eyerolled, and I figured he was being a sour pot. He was so right -.-
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
zegh8578 said:
Well, I don't know about the Hollywood trash statement, I haven't seen it. But you might as well try to cram Lord of The Rings in three hours; it just can't be done without losing a lot, possibly up to and including the soul and message of the work. Admitedly, the book Misérables had a lot of padding and sometimes random musing from the author, and the plot about the 1832 riots takes up at least as much importance as Valjean's story, yet of course the American target audience doesn't give a shit about that.
In a broader sense, I am glad Daniel Day-Lewis won his third oscar. The man is simply a cut above any other actor I have ever seen. The rest of the award's I don't really care about.
zegh8578 said:
He killed himself because of the cognitive dissonance that arose as a result of having his life saved by a man he'd spent his entire life trying to put in jail.
Courier, yes, I am realizing, and I suspected from the beginning - it's just that the movie did a terrible job at conveying that.
True, but a lot can be done with some innovation and focus on the work at hand. I am not all that pleased with Lord of the Rings in 9 hours either, for that matter, it depends on what directors want to emphasize. Everyone experiences a book differently, which is why so often movies based on books end up dissapointing so many at the time.
A director may be very fond of battles, and see LOTR as a book-about-battles-with-boring-shit-between OR someone may see it as a book-about-elves-with-boring-violence-between, and both of these may believe they have understood the book correctly.
Ah well, musicals are musicals when it comes down to it. I found the performance of "I dreamed a dream" to be nice, but then Sasha Baron Cohen suddenly spent the next 15 minutes being funny. Weird pace and stuff.
Ilosar said:
True, but a lot can be done with some innovation and focus on the work at hand. I am not all that pleased with Lord of the Rings in 9 hours either, for that matter, it depends on what directors want to emphasize. Everyone experiences a book differently, which is why so often movies based on books end up dissapointing so many at the time.
A director may be very fond of battles, and see LOTR as a book-about-battles-with-boring-shit-between OR someone may see it as a book-about-elves-with-boring-violence-between, and both of these may believe they have understood the book correctly.
Ah well, musicals are musicals when it comes down to it. I found the performance of "I dreamed a dream" to be nice, but then Sasha Baron Cohen suddenly spent the next 15 minutes being funny. Weird pace and stuff.
zegh8578 said:
Not really, if anything the movie was actually clearer than the actual live show.
Still didn't like it though. I want to strangle whoever was in charge of casting decisions for that film.