The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny

.Pixote. said:
The idea the vampire was actually a boy, with the knob removed - maybe a 19th century Castrati, who knows...something the Americans forgot to mention, was interesting.
Click to expand...
I never got that from the original. I just assumed when she would say "I'm not a girl" she meant "I'm a really old vampire." You could be right though.

In any case, the girl from the original (Lina Leandersson) makes a much creepier vampire than Chloe Grace Moretz from the U.S. version. Chloe Grace Moretz is too damn cute.
 
Just finished "The Departed", which was quite good, and makes me want to see the Chinese original.

I also watched "Children of Men", but little by little, dreary cliches and melodramatic predictabilities begun to squeeze out. For example, if you get a sneaky suspicion a personality does not fit the setting, and therefore is in danger of dying soon enough during the storyline, then that person will die, soon enough.
Towards the end, the movie feels like just a row of cliches, interspersed by nice visual effects. In that sense, it reminds me a lot about Elysium: Pointless cliches, with nice visual effects. Not good enough.
 
I liked Children of Men for it's worldbuilding and sensibly vulnerable characters, but I agree that it lacked in the story. It just kind of tapered off. Also I think the movie would have been far better if

They'd just ended it with both in the boat in the water, giving it an ambiguous ending. The current fisher boat coming up, then going to credits with the sounds of babies was just cheap in my opinion.
 
Yes, on the surface, Children of men had everything right, there were plenty of moments that had me really interested. But as the movie goes on, these moments begin to feel almost like separate episodes, and the overall package begins to expose itself as poorly planned, imo.

I really liked the road-block scene, it was detailed, and it showed the seemingly chaotic "rebels" employing a surprisingly quick and effective method of capturing people in their vehicles. It wasn't elaborated, and in my opinion the potential was wasted, but this movie managed several scenes in this professional manner, for then only to waste the oportunity. Again, similar to the impressive visuals and "ultra-realist" vibe of Elysium, untill the story begins to fart in your face :D

To be fair, Children of Men was better than Elysium, and I am being overly harsh with it, because it came sooo close to succeeding what it tried so hard to achieve, yet missed the mark through annoying and completely avoidable blunders :I
 
I get what you're saying and agree completely. It's really too bad when a movie has so much creativity in it and some good scenes but overal isn't cohesive. So it doesn't really work even though it gets so close. And it shows of course the importance, as always, of proper script writing, proper story structure.
 
What do you think about Cronenberg's movies, guys? Rewatched four of them during the last week, I think it's great stuff. Old school classic, without friggin' cell phones, shiny effects or any similar modern bullshit. Scanners, The Fly and The Brood rocks very hard; Shivers didn't catch me so much. Don't know the other yet, is it any good?
 
Just finished Schindler's list. Definitely makes me regret not having watched it fully, in one sitting, the first time around.
 
valcik said:
What do you think about Cronenberg's movies, guys?
Click to expand...
The Fly is great. It scared the crap out of me when I was a kid, and I liked it even better when I re-watched it a couple of years ago. I don't tihnk I've seen The Brood, I'll keep an eye out for that one.


Akratus said:
Reminds me of. . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kgx2b1sIRs
Click to expand...
I think most of you guys are too young to remember, but there was actually a strong backlash against D&D in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It wasn't just limited to the usual suspects you would expect like religious fundamentalists, either. There were a significant number of quack psychologists pushing the idea that kids who played D&D would lose the ability to differeatiate between fantasy and reality. I think it was easy to do that back then because most adults had no idea what a role-playing game actually was. All they saw was some strange new thing that had kids obsessed.
 
UniversalWolf said:
I think most of you guys are too young to remember, but there was actually a strong backlash against D&D in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It wasn't just limited to the usual suspects you would expect like religious fundamentalists, either. There were a significant number of quack psychologists pushing the idea that kids who played D&D would lose the ability to differeatiate between fantasy and reality. I think it was easy to do that back then because most adults had no idea what a role-playing game actually was. All they saw was some strange new thing that had kids obsessed.
Click to expand...

Times sure have changed.
this is sarcasm by the way
 
valcik said:
What do you think about Cronenberg's movies, guys? Rewatched four of them during the last week, I think it's great stuff. Old school classic, without friggin' cell phones, shiny effects or any similar modern bullshit. Scanners, The Fly and The Brood rocks very hard; Shivers didn't catch me so much. Don't know the other yet, is it any good?
Click to expand...
I don't really care about the time period a move was set in. If a movie in the 70s or 80s depicts itself in a distant futuristic setting, like Star Wars for instance, and it depicts technology that we ALREADY have, but in an outdated way, that might catch my eye, but as long as the movie itself has me, I'm suspending my disbelief, so it doesn't matter. In the case of The Fly, it doesn't matter that it's dealing with technology that doesn't exist yet, with a bulky computer that's always in DOS, I'm hooked and my disbelief on that one thing is suspended. The Fly is one of my favorite movies, so just the mere mention of Cronenberg caught my attention. =) It's a classic, even if it hasn't aged all that well, because it approaches horror in a unique way. It's not like Cabin Fever where there IS no villain and thus nobody to root for the good guys to defeat, but it's not like the Friday the 13th or Jason series where there IS a bad guy for the good guys to defeat. Seth Brundle is the protagonist, but finds himself losing his humanity over the course of the film, and we at once sympathize with and yet fear him simultaneously. His descent scares and terrifies us, yet we don't want him to die. Compare that to teenagers who come off as douchebags and start dying slowly and painfully when their douchebaggery gets them in contact with a flesh-eating bacteria, and the lack of a central cast to get behind or even an antagonist to flee from and you deny the film any solid premise or plot to follow, leaving you with no movie.

Ah, memories. I like looking back at older films that were fantastic. =D
 
No they haven't. Yes, people are getting upset at different things. But they're still getting upset in the exact same way. Oh noes, violent video games are turning kids over to unchristian behavior!
 
Oh noes, the blues are the devil's music. Oh noes, rock 'n roll is the devil's music. Oh noes, death metal is the devil's music. 100 years of changing one thing but otherwise saying the exact same thing.

There have been other topics where this phenomenon has been more thoroughly explored and quoted. Suffice it to say, UniversalWolf, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
 
That's what I'm trying to tell you.

I recently saw Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Decent flick, but definitely has to bow down to the superior Snatch. Rewatched Seven Psychopaths as well, with its genius script.
 
Things do change, but not in a simple linear path. Also a lot of people crying about the death of cinema because there are shitty movies now would have a panic attack when looking at the list of old fimls that are not remembered because they sucked ass.
I recently watched How to Train your Dragon 2 with my nephew. pretty decent flick, good animation and art direction and nice character interactions (for the most part). It has some pacing issues, and it regretably is a Dreamworks movie so the dialogue has to be infested with references, toilet humor and modern slang even when it's about Vikings riding on Dragons. It does, however, up the ante from the previous one both on dragon action and on having a mutilation on a kid's movie. the LEGO movie is still better but How to train your dragon 2 is none the less a pretty good flick.
 
Well it seems to me that if as you say How to Train your Dragon 2 is infested with childish jokes and references, the lego movie must have it's arse stuffed full of it if I go by the trailer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top