UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I saw The Cabin in the Woods, written and produced by Joss Whedon. Hmm...well, it's better than anything Chris Nolan has ever made. It strikes me as Whedon's tribute to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead movies. Thumbs up.
The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny
- Thread starter Serge 13
- Start date
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
That sounds awfully conceited... Nolan's made great work, and Cabin was just..... good. GREAT dialog, and the genre in-jokes were spot-on and the film's bizarre interpretation of "this is what all horror movies secretly are" turning into elements OF the horror in the film itself (force field + motorcycle) were all very clever. But that's all it really was: clever. Memento, on the other hand, was a mindblower. Inception was fantastic. The Dark Knight series had its moments, even if taken as a whole the 3 films had plenty of errors and bullshit shared between them (and they did). Bottom line, both directors made great work. I just think Wheedon's "best" remain Serenity and The Avengers, and each for totally separate reasons. Likewise, Nolan's "best" are also one of his earlier works and one of his later works. Go figure.
As for me, I saw 2 films in the last couple of days, one of which I've been "meaning to see" for a long time, and the other I will stop and watch EVERY TIME I catch it on TV. I'm referring to Gravity and The Shawshank Redemption, respectively.
I'd heard lot's ofgood about Gravity, but despite that I couldn't put my mind around the idea of how an astronaut floating in space would make for a compelling film, much less how that would space out an hour and a half. Then I saw it, and I get it now. I'm NOT marveled by it and I don't think it's a landmark amazing piece of film or anything, but it's certain good, and I understand why it got all that praise. It made me nauseous a couple times, it was effectively claustrophobic whenever it was trying to be, and isolating when it tried to be. It had a great life-affirming message in the film, and it ended on a slightly ambiguous, but appropriate and uplifting note. My only qualm with the film revolved around the physical impossibility of one section, and those qualms were immediately erased when said scene in question revealed itself to have taken place inside the character's imagination. It's hard to separate Sandra Bullock's desperate shouts and acting like she's fighting for her life from her earlier (not nearly as good) work on Speed, cause honestly that's EXACTLY how it sounds, even though in this film she's hardly the damsel in distress, but anyway there is that roadblock present. Overall, good film, I enjoyed it. It took me long enough.
However The Shawshank Redemption is one of the (if not the) top 3 films of all time on my list, and ANYTIME I catch it on TV I'll stop to watch it. It put Morgan Freeman on the map, as far as movie narration goes (and we all know, that's his "thing" now), and it's just one of those films that's done everything right. I was thinking about the earlier conversation on this thread about Hollywood's nasty habit of injecting pointless love stories as the focus of their films when I was thinking about Shawshank, and how that's something NONE of my top 3 shares: there are no pointless romances. They're all about hardships of life, but ultimately life-affirming, and they're all about important interpersonal relationships and character growth, not "falling in love". I could watch the fall and phoenix-like rise of Andy Dufresne over and over and over again, and it'll never lose it's luster. I could listen to Red's narration of his time at Shawshank with Andy and it'll always make me smile. The film is always great, and that one time it was playing on a channel that included writer/director notes as pop-ups was really insightful into the process of making the film, which only made my love for the movie grow. Like how Jaws benefited from sparse showcasing of the shark because the puppet was broken, Shawshank's direction and cinematography was breathtakingly accented by the film's cost-saving restrictions, so they had lots of really beautiful shots that were cleverly staged because they couldn't hire too many extras. There's just so much I love about this movie, which is why I'm quite happy to find it replaying over and over again on Stars right now! =D
As for me, I saw 2 films in the last couple of days, one of which I've been "meaning to see" for a long time, and the other I will stop and watch EVERY TIME I catch it on TV. I'm referring to Gravity and The Shawshank Redemption, respectively.
I'd heard lot's ofgood about Gravity, but despite that I couldn't put my mind around the idea of how an astronaut floating in space would make for a compelling film, much less how that would space out an hour and a half. Then I saw it, and I get it now. I'm NOT marveled by it and I don't think it's a landmark amazing piece of film or anything, but it's certain good, and I understand why it got all that praise. It made me nauseous a couple times, it was effectively claustrophobic whenever it was trying to be, and isolating when it tried to be. It had a great life-affirming message in the film, and it ended on a slightly ambiguous, but appropriate and uplifting note. My only qualm with the film revolved around the physical impossibility of one section, and those qualms were immediately erased when said scene in question revealed itself to have taken place inside the character's imagination. It's hard to separate Sandra Bullock's desperate shouts and acting like she's fighting for her life from her earlier (not nearly as good) work on Speed, cause honestly that's EXACTLY how it sounds, even though in this film she's hardly the damsel in distress, but anyway there is that roadblock present. Overall, good film, I enjoyed it. It took me long enough.
However The Shawshank Redemption is one of the (if not the) top 3 films of all time on my list, and ANYTIME I catch it on TV I'll stop to watch it. It put Morgan Freeman on the map, as far as movie narration goes (and we all know, that's his "thing" now), and it's just one of those films that's done everything right. I was thinking about the earlier conversation on this thread about Hollywood's nasty habit of injecting pointless love stories as the focus of their films when I was thinking about Shawshank, and how that's something NONE of my top 3 shares: there are no pointless romances. They're all about hardships of life, but ultimately life-affirming, and they're all about important interpersonal relationships and character growth, not "falling in love". I could watch the fall and phoenix-like rise of Andy Dufresne over and over and over again, and it'll never lose it's luster. I could listen to Red's narration of his time at Shawshank with Andy and it'll always make me smile. The film is always great, and that one time it was playing on a channel that included writer/director notes as pop-ups was really insightful into the process of making the film, which only made my love for the movie grow. Like how Jaws benefited from sparse showcasing of the shark because the puppet was broken, Shawshank's direction and cinematography was breathtakingly accented by the film's cost-saving restrictions, so they had lots of really beautiful shots that were cleverly staged because they couldn't hire too many extras. There's just so much I love about this movie, which is why I'm quite happy to find it replaying over and over again on Stars right now! =D
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Did any of you watch the 2013 remake of Oldboy? Even in part? It's a fucking disgrace what they did to that masterful work. I'm rewatching the original now, after dropping the remake entirely.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Did they remove the incest?
I watched Wedding Crashers and I did so for the 4-minute cameo of Will Ferrell. Yes, I am nuts. Wedding Crashers is a very decent comedy with Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson. Even Christopher Walken is in this movie adding +50 to its coolness factor. You should all watch it, but of course you won't.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
No, he hasn't. The Cabin in the Woods is witty and insightful and original in a way Nolan only wishes his movies could be. That's why Nolan is obessed with gimmicks and crummy trick endings. And I'm not saying Cabin is the best movie ever, or even Whedon's best work - just that it's better than anything of Nolan's.
That's a truly great movie. You can see it many times over and find something new with each viewing. I wish I could go back and see it again for the first time, because the first time you see it you have no idea what's going to happen from one scene to the next, much less how it's going to end. It's funny that it was a box-office flop, too
The orginal short story by Stephen King is worth reading if you're a fan of the movie.
I liked that one. Will Farrell's character in that movie is hilarious.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
The trick ending in Inception was a tacked on element unrelated to the quality of the movie. Also, If by "gimmick" you mean the dreaming, well it allowed them to do some spectacular things in their cinematography, action, special effects and editing, so I would disagree that it is one. The prestige also has multiple twists, and the ending really isn't a trick in any way, I would say. Memento is identified as one of the most accurate movies with a mental disorder as it's subject. The story is also dependant on it and structured around it, I'd hardly call it a gimmick.
Of course, Batman is god-awfully gimmicky.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Again, this is where I say you're wrong, and it's pretty haughty to assert as such. I never said that it was NOT better than ANYTHING of Nolan's, but it was not better than ANYTHING of Nolan's. Different statement. I'd say Cabin's better than Begins or Rises, but better than Memento or Inception? Hardly. Besides, the latter was NOT a huge hit because of its "crummy trick ending", and said ending performing nothing short of generating endless discussion over the matter of "what do you think it is?" Even if you say that's a pretty lame trick to pull of, it was still effective at generating lastability to the movie's discussion potential. Cabin? No such luck. Was The former's reveal that the good guy was killed and that protagonist was just continuing on to obsessively fuck up worse and worse a trick ending? Was it crummy? Hell no. It was really inspired and shocking. Not "Oh wow, he was dead the whole time and that's why his wife never spoke with him?" shocking, but like "Wow, that revelation makes me feel kinda sick" shocking. It just makes you think that the situation is pretty fucked up, and not "two girls one cup" fucked up, but... eh, you know the drill by now.
Point being, Nolan's made GREAT works. Wheedon's made great works too. But they're both pretentious asshats if you look at either of them from a particular angle, but each in their own way. It's silly to say that one is unaccomplished and the other shines through better than the other ever could. Just silly. That was my point.
Gnarles Bronson
regular mutant
I think the only thing Whedon really has going for him is dialogue, which is pretty great in general. I do feel like his films lack real substance though. The first time I saw the new avengers I thought it was amazing; on repeat viewings, however, once you know all the one liners and zingers... not so much.
To me Nolan is batting 1000. Just saw interstellar and it's instantly at least in my top 5 all time. I was kind of surprised it didn't get better reviews, but that just makes me like it more.
I think I liked it so much because it brought me back to that feeling I got reading sci fi books as a kid. It reminded me of "rendezvous with rama," especially. There was a sense of exploration and discovery, with just a little bit of magic thrown in -- just how a sci fi story should be.
To me Nolan is batting 1000. Just saw interstellar and it's instantly at least in my top 5 all time. I was kind of surprised it didn't get better reviews, but that just makes me like it more.
I think I liked it so much because it brought me back to that feeling I got reading sci fi books as a kid. It reminded me of "rendezvous with rama," especially. There was a sense of exploration and discovery, with just a little bit of magic thrown in -- just how a sci fi story should be.
Last edited:
It's funny, all my colleagues really disliked Interstellar. I guess you can only go so far with your pseudoscience before you piss off the physicists too much.
Although they also really complained about the incredibly shitty dialogue.
Haven't seen it myself yet, though.
Although they also really complained about the incredibly shitty dialogue.
Haven't seen it myself yet, though.
Last edited:
Gnarles Bronson
regular mutant
Yeah I've heard that too, I don't know. I'm not a physicist but I have a degree in science and from what I know it seemed pretty legit to me, Neil Degrisse Tyson seems to appreciate the science in it too. Actually the only thing that bugged me was when they talked about
omg can you believe the earth once held 6 billion people, that's soo many! when it's 7 bro, come on.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Generally speaking there's a huge gap between physicists and theoretical/quantum physicists. One has not much uncommon with geologists, astrophysicists, and their disciplines interact directly with an objective assertion of our reality. The other deals with flighty concepts that at best are contemplative and unquantifiable. One side defines black holes as superdense masses that cannot be seen because human beings see by collecting reflected light and black holes are so massive that light cannot escape their orbit ergo there is nothing for our retina to decode into perceiving. The other considers them "holes" in space that can lead to other locations and times in space and the reason we cannot see them is because they're tangibly tears between realities. The difference between the two is startling, so it matters whether you know a physicist or a theoretical/quantum physicist. It's 2 completely different fields, the only similarity they share is 1 word.
So if you know a physicist, and a story cozies up to the theoretical side of the spectrum, yeah, they're not gonna be happy about that.
So if you know a physicist, and a story cozies up to the theoretical side of the spectrum, yeah, they're not gonna be happy about that.
Uh, gotta disagree with that. First of all, the distinction is not between "physicists" and "theoretical/quantum physicists", it's more like a distinction between experimental and theoretical. And then there's the two main branches of condensed matter physics and particle physics, which in turn branch out some more.
The basic principles of black holes (as far as they are commonly understood as of now. Hawking actually just published a paper that our understanding might be wrong to some degree) are known to pretty much all physicists, even to me, a lowly experimental condensed matter physicist who is basically on the other end of the spectrum of physics (applied quantum mechanics, very cold, very small. Astronomy/astrophysics is mainly General Relativity and cares about very hot, very large objects, and very little about quantum mechanics). That's because we all have basic courses on all fields, which includes quantum mechanics and astronomy.
I won't go into a longer discussion of black holes for now, but let me just say that no, black holes are not holes in space (as far as we know), and I don't think anyone thinks of them that way. "Holes through spacetime" are a part of black hole physics, though, the Einstein-Rosen bridge (wormholes), but that's actually a more general concept. But that's stuff for a really long discussion (which I naturally love to have, but this is a thread about movies, not physics).
Well, all the physicists I know who have seen Interstellar are experimental condensed matter physicists like myself, although one of them does have a background in theoretical particle physics. My bet is that the theoreticians (especially those in astronomy) like it even less
Gnarles Bronson
regular mutant
You should ask them what it was specifically that bugged them. I've read a few things online from people who said they were scientists, but none of their critiques were very interesting to me (from a bad science point of view).
Nolan did work with Kip Thorne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne on making the film scientifically sound, and as far as I know he's completely respected in the fields of theoretical and astrophysics. I get the feeling that most people that talk smack about its supposed bad science don't really know what they're talking about.
Nolan did work with Kip Thorne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne on making the film scientifically sound, and as far as I know he's completely respected in the fields of theoretical and astrophysics. I get the feeling that most people that talk smack about its supposed bad science don't really know what they're talking about.
Sending morse code from the inside of an event horizon (dunno how it happens exactly, haven't seen it) is... Dubious from a scientific point of view. Handwaving, but it's not Hard Scifi we're talking about here.
Having incredibly large time dilation on a planet orbiting a black hole is not all that feasible either; if the planet is so close to the event horizon the tidal forces (coming from the massive spacetime curvature) would be brutal, I guess.
Well, from what I read the movie really tries hard to scientifically sound. It probably contains some handwaving, but that's to be expected. Mind you that my colleagues and I are not astrophysicists, we're usually dealing with the opposite end of the scale length in physics.
Having incredibly large time dilation on a planet orbiting a black hole is not all that feasible either; if the planet is so close to the event horizon the tidal forces (coming from the massive spacetime curvature) would be brutal, I guess.
Well, from what I read the movie really tries hard to scientifically sound. It probably contains some handwaving, but that's to be expected. Mind you that my colleagues and I are not astrophysicists, we're usually dealing with the opposite end of the scale length in physics.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Red leader, all volume at maximum, copy that!
Last edited by a moderator:
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Star the force awakens Wars is already looking dumb....
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
But Star Wars was always kinda dumb. Come on, it's just going to be a popcorn action nerdstravaganza like it always should've been.
Last edited by a moderator:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
A REALLY short discussion, actually. There's groups of physicists who look down on their contemporaries for having faith in God. Then there's groups of physicists who insist that science and faith go hand in hand. Then there's groups of physicists who posit that black holes are merely superdense masses of inescapable and exponentially increasing gravity. Then there's groups of physicists who say black holes are aforementioned holes in spacetime. Then there's groups of physicists who think there's a time particle we have yet to discover.
The discussion of that matter is really very simple: there's groups that disagree with each other, and one type will probably adore the "science" depicted in a given movie while another type will probably hate it while another type thinks it's hilarious. One guy (I forget his name) playfully pointed out that the globe on the Daily Show was spinning the wrong direction, then went on to whimsically poke fun at inconsistencies with Gravity. But it was all in good fun, he didn't hate those mistakes, he just pointed them out.
oxidize
It Wandered In From the Wastes
It's beyond dumb. I just saw the trailer and almost every fucking scene in it was somehow dumb. Even the first scene where some startrooper just pops out from nowhere for no apparent reason and with no connection to anything...
Yeah, but this is whole new level of dumb. The prime reason for that being the Disney.
Last edited: