Announcement

wah1188
You orrible caaaaaaan't
+321|5837|UK

-Sh1fty- wrote:

Ultrafunkula wrote:

Pacific Rim 6,5/10

Special effects are awesome, but the story was crap.
Yeah that's how I felt about the movie as well. It could have been so much better but at least the action scenes were worth the $5 I spent to see it at the movie theater. edit: I enjoyed the soundtrack a lot. This is really catchy for some reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DABGdvCOs4
I loved this movie the visual effects were stunning. How can you complain about the story did you really think some complex plot lines were going to occur? Big robots smashing the shit out of big creatures I can dig it.

Prisoners 8/10 Strong perfomances by Jake Gyllenhaal and Hugh Jackman. Don Cheadle is in it too decent thriller movie with a red herring thrown in for good measure.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|5530|what

Now You See Me

2/10

Fucking hell, one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Especially when you consider the cast.

Totally unforgivable act by all those involved to be a part of or to make this movie.

I award 2 points for the fact this movie would have suckered people into watching it due to the trailer.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|6087|Oklahoma City
Gravity: An Overrated 7/10

Was it interesting? Yes. Did it keep my attention and have good pacing? Yes. It was seriously overhyped though. Mind not blown. Replay not needed. Worth a watch, but seriously, IMAX 3D was not enough to make this more AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone said it is the same advancement in graphics as Avatar, but um, no. This was like watching a typical Discovery Channel IMAX Space Special with actors getting in the way of the pretty blue planet. Yes, it was pretty. But it wasn't the most amazing thing I had ever seen as I was led to believe.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,783|5483|eXtreme to the maX

HITNRUNXX wrote:

https://www.catster.com/files/original.jpg
I thought it was pretty good, plus Sandra Bullocks thighs.

The three beers might have helped TBH.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-10-18 01:52:06)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
UnkleRukus
That Guy
+236|4413|Massachusetts, USA

RTHKI wrote:

everyone knew it wasnt like the book
The book could be a pretty cool TV series on HBO. Enough stories in it to do a couple of seasons.
If the women don't find ya handsome. They should at least find ya handy.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|5530|what

Jean-Luc blow up the damn ship!
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|3572|Oklahoma

UnkleRukus wrote:

RTHKI wrote:

everyone knew it wasnt like the book
The book could be a pretty cool TV series on HBO. Enough stories in it to do a couple of seasons.
I don't understand what was wrong with a plot that followed the book.

A man living in the post-zombie war world, traveling around interviewing people that had personal stories to tell about their experiences during the beginning, climax, and end of the zombie war.  Every interview would have had a flashback of what they went through.  Battle of Yonkers, The Road of Death in India, The Tiger Raj Singh, The Chinese submarine, The Canadian wastelands, The perimeter battles, etc etc etc etc etc.
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6152|Noizyland

Saw Gravity last night with the whole IMAX 3D treatment which was actually worth it. It was very exciting, a Hell of a ride, sphincter-tightening stuff but despite being exceptionally well shot and edited it probably isn't worth all the accolades.

I definitely recommend it. It has an amazing atmosphere and the action scenes are very compelling but it is let down by a few too many things to justify its status as the sort of film critics can't seem to find anything wrong with on the first viewing, (see also: The Dark Knight.) For one I think the casting choice was poor. While many people are gushing about George Clooney and Sandra Bullock I just didn't see what the fuss was about. Clooney was just himself and Bullock was... I just don't find her a good actress. I still don't know she earned an Oscar for The Blind Side, that film was rubbish. And here she performs adequately for the most part - like when she's required to be scared and spinning through space. She gets away with it there but later on when she's carrying the movie on her own and needs to put in some emotion and character it falls flat. It may be due to problems with the character itself, I don't know. It certainly suffers from a bit of stock dialogue.

Other spoilery points:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Clooney's return proved to be somewhat of a record skip for me. First off it seemed so ridiculously unbelievable and when it was revealed to be a fantasy my reaction was more of a "well duh". Probably would have worked better if it came across as more unreal from the get-go - like the cliche of having a lone character suddenly be in the company of a lost partner which lets you know it's a hallucination. Instead it's presented as if the movie expects you to believe it's actually happening, meaning you're kind of scoffing at the whole thing as it goes on before it returns to credibility with an air of "woah betcha didn't see that coming".

Lastly with the focus so much on a series of "how can it possibly get worse" action scenes it borders on taking it too far. At the very end when you've had a frantic escape into the Chinese station as it re-enters the atmosphere and is pelted by debris, the frantic re-entry of the capsule, the landing, the capsule sinking, Bullock unable to get out of the capsule, and then Bullock sinking in her space suit and having to get out of it before finally swimming to the surface - it just seems like it never ends. She swam through a bunch of weeds and judging from some giggling around me in the theatre I'm guessing others were thinking exactly what I was and expecting her to get tangled in the damn seaweed next. I was just thinking it was enough. The film delivered more than enough thrills and it was wrapping up but it seemed to want to try the "it's not over" game too much. It's like at the end of the horror movie when the seemingly dead killer gets up and needs to be put down again. Except they wanted to do it two more times after that.


All in all a worthy film and a fun film-going experience that most likely won't be able to be replicated by watching it at home. It's exceptionally well shot and well edited and the sound mixing and score is expertly applied but is let down in enough areas where I don't think it will stand the test of time.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steve-0
Karma limited. Contact Admin to Be Promoted.
+214|3337|SL,UT

any review that mentions sphincter has my attention
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+788|6062|United States of America

Ty wrote:

Saw Gravity last night with the whole IMAX 3D treatment which was actually worth it. It was very exciting, a Hell of a ride, sphincter-tightening stuff but despite being exceptionally well shot and edited it probably isn't worth all the accolades.

I definitely recommend it. It has an amazing atmosphere and the action scenes are very compelling but it is let down by a few too many things to justify its status as the sort of film critics can't seem to find anything wrong with on the first viewing, (see also: The Dark Knight.) For one I think the casting choice was poor. While many people are gushing about George Clooney and Sandra Bullock I just didn't see what the fuss was about. Clooney was just himself and Bullock was... I just don't find her a good actress. I still don't know she earned an Oscar for The Blind Side, that film was rubbish. And here she performs adequately for the most part - like when she's required to be scared and spinning through space. She gets away with it there but later on when she's carrying the movie on her own and needs to put in some emotion and character it falls flat. It may be due to problems with the character itself, I don't know. It certainly suffers from a bit of stock dialogue.

Other spoilery points:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Clooney's return proved to be somewhat of a record skip for me. First off it seemed so ridiculously unbelievable and when it was revealed to be a fantasy my reaction was more of a "well duh". Probably would have worked better if it came across as more unreal from the get-go - like the cliche of having a lone character suddenly be in the company of a lost partner which lets you know it's a hallucination. Instead it's presented as if the movie expects you to believe it's actually happening, meaning you're kind of scoffing at the whole thing as it goes on before it returns to credibility with an air of "woah betcha didn't see that coming".

Lastly with the focus so much on a series of "how can it possibly get worse" action scenes it borders on taking it too far. At the very end when you've had a frantic escape into the Chinese station as it re-enters the atmosphere and is pelted by debris, the frantic re-entry of the capsule, the landing, the capsule sinking, Bullock unable to get out of the capsule, and then Bullock sinking in her space suit and having to get out of it before finally swimming to the surface - it just seems like it never ends. She swam through a bunch of weeds and judging from some giggling around me in the theatre I'm guessing others were thinking exactly what I was and expecting her to get tangled in the damn seaweed next. I was just thinking it was enough. The film delivered more than enough thrills and it was wrapping up but it seemed to want to try the "it's not over" game too much. It's like at the end of the horror movie when the seemingly dead killer gets up and needs to be put down again. Except they wanted to do it two more times after that.


All in all a worthy film and a fun film-going experience that most likely won't be able to be replicated by watching it at home. It's exceptionally well shot and well edited and the sound mixing and score is expertly applied but is let down in enough areas where I don't think it will stand the test of time.
The question we're all interested in, though, is there any mention of space dementia?
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|3572|Oklahoma
Does the movie contain a lap dance?
Brasso
member
+1,549|6007

DesertFox- wrote:

The question we're all interested in, though, is there any mention of space dementia?
you mean the best muse song ever?

"people in ny have a general idea of how to drive. one of the pedals goes forward the other one prevents you from dying"
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+788|6062|United States of America
No.

HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|6087|Oklahoma City

Ty wrote:

Saw Gravity last night with the whole IMAX 3D treatment which was actually worth it. It was very exciting, a Hell of a ride, sphincter-tightening stuff but despite being exceptionally well shot and edited it probably isn't worth all the accolades.

I definitely recommend it. It has an amazing atmosphere and the action scenes are very compelling but it is let down by a few too many things to justify its status as the sort of film critics can't seem to find anything wrong with on the first viewing, (see also: The Dark Knight.) For one I think the casting choice was poor. While many people are gushing about George Clooney and Sandra Bullock I just didn't see what the fuss was about. Clooney was just himself and Bullock was... I just don't find her a good actress. I still don't know she earned an Oscar for The Blind Side, that film was rubbish. And here she performs adequately for the most part - like when she's required to be scared and spinning through space. She gets away with it there but later on when she's carrying the movie on her own and needs to put in some emotion and character it falls flat. It may be due to problems with the character itself, I don't know. It certainly suffers from a bit of stock dialogue.

Other spoilery points:
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Clooney's return proved to be somewhat of a record skip for me. First off it seemed so ridiculously unbelievable and when it was revealed to be a fantasy my reaction was more of a "well duh". Probably would have worked better if it came across as more unreal from the get-go - like the cliche of having a lone character suddenly be in the company of a lost partner which lets you know it's a hallucination. Instead it's presented as if the movie expects you to believe it's actually happening, meaning you're kind of scoffing at the whole thing as it goes on before it returns to credibility with an air of "woah betcha didn't see that coming".

Lastly with the focus so much on a series of "how can it possibly get worse" action scenes it borders on taking it too far. At the very end when you've had a frantic escape into the Chinese station as it re-enters the atmosphere and is pelted by debris, the frantic re-entry of the capsule, the landing, the capsule sinking, Bullock unable to get out of the capsule, and then Bullock sinking in her space suit and having to get out of it before finally swimming to the surface - it just seems like it never ends. She swam through a bunch of weeds and judging from some giggling around me in the theatre I'm guessing others were thinking exactly what I was and expecting her to get tangled in the damn seaweed next. I was just thinking it was enough. The film delivered more than enough thrills and it was wrapping up but it seemed to want to try the "it's not over" game too much. It's like at the end of the horror movie when the seemingly dead killer gets up and needs to be put down again. Except they wanted to do it two more times after that.


All in all a worthy film and a fun film-going experience that most likely won't be able to be replicated by watching it at home. It's exceptionally well shot and well edited and the sound mixing and score is expertly applied but is let down in enough areas where I don't think it will stand the test of time.
I agree... Except I didn't find it quite as exciting as you...

Spoiler (highlight to read):

And I totally agree with you on the Clooney Returns part of the movie. That was what really broke me out of the film. I knew it had to be a hallucination, and if by chance it wasn't, it discredited the whole movie... Now, if they had used a stranger claiming to be from the Chinese station that claimed they saw her out there but their comms were damaged, so they launched a rescue mission... Well, I would have totally bought that... But then there wouldn't have been any real point to it except to trick you... And a movie that does something that doesn't advance the storyline with the sole purpose of tricking the viewer is pretty lame.
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|6087|Oklahoma City
Ender's Game: 8/10

As a huge fan of the books, I can say I am very happy with the movie. It was like a nostalgia smorgasbord. The only downside at all (and it is also a plus) is that it could have been 30 minutes longer. It hit a couple points where I starting thinking "They aren't going to fit everything in... Or they are going to rush it..." And they did skip a lot of the battleschool matches that showed his adaptation and frustration and just some of his problem solving genius. But I also totally understand why a 2.5 hour movie would be a negative for most people.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England
Ender's Game: 8/10

It was visually very awesome. The only thing that I found to be bad was Harrison Ford's acting, but he's always been terrible so par for the course I guess. They stayed very true to the book, it just felt very condensed, like a Reader's Digest version of the story, which again, is par for the course for any movie. Even my wife liked it, although all she saw was generic sci-fi movie, so I guess the story could've been explained better to those that haven't read the book. Go see it in the theater, the battle scenes won't be as epic on a tv.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6152|Noizyland

HITNRUNXX wrote:

I agree... Except I didn't find it quite as exciting as you...

Spoiler (highlight to read):

And I totally agree with you on the Clooney Returns part of the movie. That was what really broke me out of the film. I knew it had to be a hallucination, and if by chance it wasn't, it discredited the whole movie... Now, if they had used a stranger claiming to be from the Chinese station that claimed they saw her out there but their comms were damaged, so they launched a rescue mission... Well, I would have totally bought that... But then there wouldn't have been any real point to it except to trick you... And a movie that does something that doesn't advance the storyline with the sole purpose of tricking the viewer is pretty lame.
That was exactly my first thought too -
Spoiler (highlight to read):
I thought the astronaut outside the capsule was a Chinese astronaut launching a rescue mission and when he came in and turned out to be Clooney my only thought was 'wtf is this shit?'

Apollo 13 was a much better space disaster movie.

Saw 'Beyond the Edge' last Thursday - a film/documentary about the 1953 first ascent of Everest. I suppose I was a little disappointed in that it was mostly just piercing together a whole lot of recorded interviews from those who were on the expedition meaning much of it was stuff I'd heard before. The new stuff came from noteworthy mountaineers but didn't really add much. It was essentially a masturbatory aid for New Zealanders focussed on praising Sir Ed but I was pleased that it spent a lot of time on Tenzing as well. He usually gets forgotten about a bit and was largely the unheeded hero during his own lifetime. It had very clever editing with the original footage and dramatisations. Can't really comment on the acting because all they had to do was look like the person they were supposed to be playing. Chad Moffett was pretty good - he's a Canadian artist who works for Weta Digital who's only other marketable skill is apparently looking exactly like a circa 1953 Edmund Hillary. Didn't have much room to actually act but clearly did his homework. The 3D doesn't really add too much but given the film is visually pretty impressive I imagien it has its desired effect.

Worth seeing if you're interested in mountaineering but doesn't add anything to what's already known. It seems more focussed on being visually engaging than informative. I would have liked to see about the descent from the summit - there's pretty much nothing on that. All Beyond the Edge did was the standard "they're on the top, now they're back at base camp" thing. A missed opportunity.

Could have been a lot better.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6091|Purplicious Wisconsin

Jay wrote:

Ender's Game: 8/10Go see it in the theater, the battle scenes won't be as epic on a tv.
Unless you have a good theater/sound system in your own movie room.

Last edited by War Man (2013-11-04 02:27:10)

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

War Man wrote:

Jay wrote:

Ender's Game: 8/10Go see it in the theater, the battle scenes won't be as epic on a tv.
Unless you have a good theater/sound system in your own movie room.
Is your house 4 stories tall? Fuck off white trash
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jord
Member
+2,382|6055|The North, beyond the wall.
I much prefer watching films at home, on my own, in peace. Guaranteed the best seat and no talking/eating. I used to go the the cinema socially but I'd never ruin a good film by going, I'd just watch shit like the Avengers...
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+659|5668|Washington St.
samesies.

I can immerse myself in a film without the need to have booming sound and a 2-story tall screen. Better? Sure, but only slightly. Plus, with the need drop $12 + $8 for food, it just seems ridiculous. I haven't been to more than 2 movies in the past 5 years at theaters.
With larger TV's and nice sound systems, I never even want to anymore.
Plus I can pause and take a piss and get food and whatnot.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,724|6114|Oxferd Ohire
you dont have to buy food
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+659|5668|Washington St.
I actually rarely do. The gf thinks you can't go to a movie without popincorn though. I once suggested we don't get it and that was utter blasphemy.

People look at going to movies as an "event" rather than just sitting your ass down and watching the moving pictures.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|5530|what

Pacific Rim

Solid meh / 10

For something with such a simple plot, there were a lot of plot holes.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

pirana6 wrote:

samesies.

I can immerse myself in a film without the need to have booming sound and a 2-story tall screen. Better? Sure, but only slightly. Plus, with the need drop $12 + $8 for food, it just seems ridiculous. I haven't been to more than 2 movies in the past 5 years at theaters.
With larger TV's and nice sound systems, I never even want to anymore.
Plus I can pause and take a piss and get food and whatnot.
Why go to a baseball game when you can sit on your couch? Why visit a national park when you can watch Nat Geo? Why go to a concert when you can download the mp3?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard