The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny

I am honestly disappointed in you Ilosar, I really had the idea that you were one of the posters here who has better taste.

While I have not seen Star Trek Into Darkness I read the plot up on Wikipedia and I honestly felt that my Intelligence Quotient had lowered after going through all that dribble.

I'm sure that it is better than the first one as it did not depend on a time travel plot which at best has always been hokey, but not only did this movie rip off a far better movie, it even ripped off its predecessor by basically copying part of the plotline of that movie.

[spoiler:11a72e6858]Somehow the main bad guy managed to get his hands on an incredible powerful starship and plans to destroy Earth, or in this case San Fransisco[/spoiler:11a72e6858]

Some of the plot holes were also incredible dumb and how much spectacle there might be in this movie regarding action scenes and effects, they can not hide the fact that some of the plot depends on the characters being stupid.
 
I guess it would have been actually better if they simply moved over to the battle between Khan and Kirk. Many think, it was one of the better ST movies. There has been a lot of rumor about Khan as next vilain anyway.

*
[spoiler:0cf764d3e6]Oh well, now it seems there is indeed Khan. [/spoiler:0cf764d3e6]
 
I have a feeling they will turn this in to a spin of arc.

Leonard Nimoy's 3 lines hint at that.

At least that's what i hope for because the last two movies where crap and an insult to every star trek fan out there.

And what the fuck is that android doing on board the enterprise.
 
Akratus said:
What I get least of all, is why the movie played BLUE at the very beginning. . . of all the songs you could pick . . . .
Click to expand...

The flashback is set in Europe in 1999, and it just so happens that the song was REALLY popular that here. Heck, it's STILL popular, which is all the more unfortunate for me, given I hate it.
 
Verd1234 said:
That being said none of the 12 star trek films are able to match the heights of the TOS and TNG...
Click to expand...
I have to disagree there. Wrath of Khan is the absolute zenith of Star Trek IMO. If the franchise had ended there forever (with the death of Spock), I would have been happy. I've always enjoyed TOS for its originality and its awesome 1960s special effects, but TNG is merely tolerable. I probably like all the Star Trek shows after TNG better than TNG simply because they're a whole lot less pretentious.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
I am honestly disappointed in you Ilosar, I really had the idea that you were one of the posters here who has better taste.

While I have not seen Star Trek Into Darkness I read the plot up on Wikipedia and I honestly felt that my Intelligence Quotient had lowered after going through all that dribble.

I'm sure that it is better than the first one as it did not depend on a time travel plot which at best has always been hokey, but not only did this movie rip off a far better movie, it even ripped off its predecessor by basically copying part of the plotline of that movie.

[spoiler:8ad153ee5e]Somehow the main bad guy managed to get his hands on an incredible powerful starship and plans to destroy Earth, or in this case San Fransisco[/spoiler:8ad153ee5e]

Some of the plot holes were also incredible dumb and how much spectacle there might be in this movie regarding action scenes and effects, they can not hide the fact that some of the plot depends on the characters being stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, not watching the movie makes your argument pretty weak IMO. it's one thing to read a plot summary, and another to see the film in action. Simply reading the plot of any of Tarantino's movies would probably make me not want to see it (they're not exactly ground-breaking), but it's all the dialog, the well-crafted action scenes, the details that make his movies great to me. J.J. Abrams is kinda like that; yes the plot is kinda lousy and has too many hanging threads, but the rest is so well done I'm willing to overlook it. You should really watch it before passing judgement I think.

As for copying that other movie, I found it more of an homage. The plot is very different in practice, it just has the ''same'' antagonist.

[spoiler:8ad153ee5e] Also the new Khan looks and sounds infinitely less derpy than Wrath of Khan's. His actor does a pretty good job. [/spoiler:8ad153ee5e]
 
I am honestly not trying to hijack this thread and turn it into a Star Trek one, but I really liked Voyager Season 4 and 5 as a Sci Fi action adventure series even if it did not always feel like Star Trek.

Deep Space Nine, despite its 'humanity' and references to political or ideological subjects really was boring because I really could not care about the characters.

Enterprise season 4 also had some good moments but it was to late to save that series after all the dreck of the previous seasons, and they still occasionally resorted to average writing and cheap tropes even in the best stories.

As for the movies, next to Wrath of Khan I also liked The Undiscovered Country a lot and found it a good send off of the original cast.

I liked Star Trek First Contact a lot years ago, but I realize now that was mostly because I was into the action-adventure stuff and less how the story was put together.
I recognize so many flaws so and so many things I wish they rather had not done such as introducing the Borg Queen.


Edit:

Well, not watching the movie makes your argument pretty weak IMO.
Click to expand...

* sigh * why would I have to watch a movie that I already disliked after reading the plot summary, in order to back up why I don't like it?

Watching it all in action is suddenly going to change my opinion about the bad storyline, characters that don't act at all like their classic counterparts or even resemble them, and the load of plotholes we are suppose to ignore because the writers did not care to explain them either?


As for copying that other movie, I found it more of an homage. The plot is very different in practice, it just has the ''same'' antagonist.
Click to expand...

No, there is a difference between a homage and a rip off.
A homage is a loving reference to a classic story or moment, a rip off is clearly stealing superior material because you can't come up with anything of your own.

The reboot was done because the director and the writers felt that the forty years of television of movie history was making it according to them difficult to tell new stories.

And yet when they have a whole new playground to play in they immediately resort to what has already been done before.
Not just in Wrath of Khan and Nemesis, but also even their previous Star Trek movie.
 
I guess it's maybe because I'm not a big Star trek fan and took the movie for what it is, an entertaining flick with better-than-average dialog. But honestly, when has Star Trek ever been about tight, well-made plots? Honestly now. It's about character interaction mixed with philosophy in space. Abrams's flicks lack the philosophy part, which drags down the movies for sure, but he certainly nails the character interaction IMO, and of course the space part, albeit we could rather thank the CGI folks for that.
 
Per said:
I saw Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and really liked it.
Click to expand...
Hah. I love that film. Saw it randomly late at night on BBC one time, never would have known it even existed otherwise. Tom Stoppard!
 
Has anyone watched Catch 22 (1970 ), I remember seeing this when I was about 5 or 6, and I'm planning to watch it again soon. I love the book.

500full.jpg
 
Per said:
I saw Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and really liked it.
Click to expand...
There's a low-budget zombie movie called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Undead. Haven't seen it though.

EDIT: I still haven't seen it, but apparently it's a low-budget vampire movie, not a low budget zombie movie.
 
Lebanon
2009, Israel

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__BqlxfEVGSg/S-rP1_eWi2I/AAAAAAAACUo/Mys6RDirg9g/s400/lebanon+still.jpg

With the entire movie shot from inside a tank, this movie is unique by default. In many ways a typical "anti-war" film, it is original, and manages to employ many a good effect, although it might get a tad bit predictable/preachy I am willing to forgive all of that for the sake of originality, tension and intension. What more can one ask anyway, right?
So, I'm giving it a good solid score, out of ten.
Click to expand...

Hey, thanks for this recommendation. I've been on the fence about this one for the very things you criticize - typical anti-war movie. I'll go on your opinion that it has something else to offer and check it out.
 
I re-watched a semi-forgotten classic the other day. David Cronenberg's 1986 remake of The Fly. Pretty great. It might be the most horrifying (as opposed to scary, disgusting, or gory) horror movie ever.

EDIT:
The reviews of After Earth (a movie I have no plans to see, ever) are pretty funny to read. Most of them say the same thing different ways, but my favorite phrasing so far is Kevin Carr:

"...a bought-and-paid-for vanity piece for a spoiled teenager..."

http://www.7mpictures.com/after-earth-movie-review/

BTW, it's directed by M. Night Shyamalan. So you know it has to be good.
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezkAeQuUqCg[/youtube]





An old French sci-fi/post-apocalyptic film. Highly recommended.

Obvious inspiration for 12 Monkeys.
 
The Act of Killing, 2012
Denmark/Britain/Norway
The_Act_of_Killing_%282012_film%29.jpg


Concerns the violent purges in Indonesia during the 1960s, in which an unknown - but very high - number of people were killed.
The people who perpetrated these crimes have not only never been held accountable, but quite the contrary, are now in power, support militia wings, and openly describe their acts - both past and current - as cruel and criminal. Some of the main henchmen are considered national heroes still. Some openly brag about mass murder, completely open and in public, and others brag just as openly about the ease and benefit of political corruption (obvious benefits are for example - he gets rich!)
Very bizarre.
Throughout the docu, many of these individuals are working on making an amateur movie about their deeds. In all, very unsettling.
 
The Adventures of Mark Twain has a nice segment that you can watch here without having to see the rest of the movie.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifeyKhxgHbA[/youtube]
 
That is indeed a very cool bit, saw it like 5 times before.

So recently I've watched Being John Malkovich, and more recently The Silence of the Lambs. Silence of the Lambs is really good, being John Malkovich is really . . interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top