BF2S Forums Rate the last movie you've seen

Toy Story
9.0/10

Toy Story 2
8.5/10

Looking forward to the third one.
Waiting for it to be released as a steelbook special edition.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Shaky cams can go die in a fire unless they're used for passenger-cam traffic collisions or up-close explosions. NOT for standing in an air-conditioned office talking about bad weather.

Indeed so.
The camera is representing the eyes of the beholder, i.e. you. And you wouldn't shake around constantly when watching.
Even when running, the relatively heavy human head and the muscles of the neck act as a natural steady cam, keeping one's eyes level, except in heavy movement. Plus the brain's many filters acting as a natural image stabilizer.

So, a shaky camera is utterly wrong in about 95% of all usages.

RocknRolla 10/10, always love watching it

as for films i haven't seen before but have recently... Limitless, The Social Network and Due Date are all very 'meh' with 5/10 each probably

turned TSN off after an hour

Sisco wrote:

2010 - The year we make contact

What a shit movie. It´s like they intended to take everything that made Kubricks masterpiece so great and decided to NOT use it in the sequel.

No, they were right!
NASA together with Roscosmos and ESA added sound to the interplanetary vacuum in early 2010.

City of God - 9/10

Fuck so many good underrated movies.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If you can get past its weaknesses compared to 2001, it isn't really that bad of a film. I still have to wonder if they'll ever film 2061 or 3001.

Even without comparing them, 2010 is still shit imo. What´s with all the wizardy nonsense the Starchild does back on Earth? Why the subplot with USA/Russia going to war? And HAL? His role was so minor, they could have replaced him with a calculator and it wouldn´t have made a difference.

Kmar wrote:

Sisco wrote:

everything that made Kubricks masterpiece so great

ambiguity

More like redundancy

Kmar wrote:

Have you seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreta … ce_Odyssey

Interpret it any way you want, but to me, what made that movie so good was not so much the mystery (i guess you could call it that), but the sound. Not just the great choice of music at the right moment, but also the lack of sound at certain parts giving the movie that great atmosphere of actually being on an almost empty spaceship floating through nothing but blackness.

Kmar wrote:

Kampframmer wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Have you seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpreta … ce_Odyssey

Interpret it any way you want, but to me, what made that movie so good was not so much the mystery (i guess you could call it that), but the sound. Not just the great choice of music at the right moment, but also the lack of sound at certain parts giving the movie that great atmosphere of actually being on an almost empty spaceship floating through nothing but blackness.

Yea, the breathing was great to fall asleep to (true story). The allegory was far more intriguing though.

The ending (obviously) was very interesting to give a personal interpretation. And yes, there was a lot of breathing at that point (there werent a lot other sounds), but before that, the music and sound really dominated the movie.

Last edited by Kampframmer (2011-04-14 03:45:47)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

globefish23 wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Shaky cams can go die in a fire unless they're used for passenger-cam traffic collisions or up-close explosions. NOT for standing in an air-conditioned office talking about bad weather.

Indeed so.
The camera is representing the eyes of the beholder, i.e. you. And you wouldn't shake around constantly when watching.
Even when running, the relatively heavy human head and the muscles of the neck act as a natural steady cam, keeping one's eyes level, except in heavy movement. Plus the brain's many filters acting as a natural image stabilizer.

So, a shaky camera is utterly wrong in about 95% of all usages.

NO! Everybody's vision must look like it's strapped to a paint shaker.

100% true

Restrepo: 8/10

Quite exciting at times, touching as well. It was certainly a look into the world of a group of infantrymen that you don't get to see every day. However, while I admire it for not taking a side on the issue of the war, it would have been more interesting if it had.

Sisco wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

If you can get past its weaknesses compared to 2001, it isn't really that bad of a film. I still have to wonder if they'll ever film 2061 or 3001.

Even without comparing them, 2010 is still shit imo. What´s with all the wizardy nonsense the Starchild does back on Earth? Why the subplot with USA/Russia going to war? And HAL? His role was so minor, they could have replaced him with a calculator and it wouldn´t have made a difference.

Did you read the books?