What have you watched recently: Electric Boogaloo

Judgement Day

"2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968) on DVD. I'd say that I last saw this movie about 40 years ago and I didn't understand it then and I don't understand it now. I bought it for my 11 year old son who is into anything space related and he enjoyed the space scenes - whatever he made of the spaced-out ones. Truly much of the movie looks like it was directed by somebody using a serious amount of drugs - it was made in the 'swinging 60's' after all! Worth watching about every 40 years but peasant that I am, I prefer a good episode of Star Trek (William Shatner) or Doctor Who. 9/10 - for special effects.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)

Marty McFly

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Via IMDB:

Die Hard 1 - 8.3
Die Hard 2 - 7.1
Die Hard 3 - 7.5
Die Hard 4 - 7.3
Die Hard 5 - 5.3

I'd rate 2 and 5 lower (I'd give 5 about a 3) and 3 higher.

5 is one of the worst movies of the year.

A great quote from the New Yorker review:

"As McClane, now in a chunky white Mercedes, accelerates out of a hovering helicopter and swings around on a chain, you feel that you’re watching the illegal download of a tie-in video game. All trace of character development has been stripped away, and the film stalls in a mire of its own nonsense, leaving nothing but a strange, sticky residue of political nostalgia."

Each to there own , I'm not saying it was a masterpiece just that it was better than I expected and I enjoyed it for what it was and for me a much less annoying and irritating outing than 4 was.

Tipsy McSwagger

The Call - Decent for about 45 mins but my god the ending was awful.

MilanPan!c

Also saw the Hobbit 2.

Ehhh... A biiiiiiit too long, but sure if you like that kind of thing it was pretty excellent.

Not for the purists of course.

mike65

The Conversation (1974) Francis Ford Coppola directs this archetypal mid 70s slice of urban paranoia, Gene Hackman excellent as Harry Caul, surveillance expert who's own character traits are used against him. The technology of course looks incredibly quaint!

Psychedelic

Timecrimes (2007)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480669/?ref_=rvi_tt

Excellent time travel film from Spain. Featuring a small cast and few sets, it is fairly straightforward to follow with a clear time travel logic which makes it a bit predictable in the middle but it still has a few surprises. If you love time travel this is a must-see.

TheMollusc

Videodrome (1983)

A film by David Cronenberg, known as the master of body horror. Videodrome is from the earlier, surreal part of his career before his hyperrealistic later movies like A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. It was made before arguably his most infamous film, The Fly.

I must admit that I'm not very well acquainted with Cronenberg, only really seeing his later work, but I am a huge David Lynch fan. Loving the surreal films of David Lynch like I do, you are recommended other surreal films such as those of Bunuel and Cronenberg. Last night, I finally got around to Videodrome. A story about a sleazy TV programmer who is looking for new programming for his controversial channel 83, which airs everything from pornography to hardcore violence.

My first reaction after finishing it was "What did I just watch?" but I'll try to articulate my thoughts somewhat! I was sucked into the film from the very beginning, this isn't the type of film that takes time to get into gear, it moves along swiftly. The story is intriguing but definitely not one for the easily offended. As its titular 'Videodrome' is introduced, things go from odd to pretty insane. After watching this horror/sci-fi all the way through I wasn't much more enlightened than when I was halfway through. Its themes seem to address the effects of the media, of fake violence, of real violence and more. I'm still thinking about it right now though, so that says something about Videodrome.

I've rambled on quite a bit now so I'll simply finish with this:

Long Live The New Flesh!

Barna77

Don Jon. Funny and witty

hefferboi wrote: »

Just watched Rush. Movie of the year for me.

Just watched it. Good movie, but somehow I didn't fully get into it until

the accident.

.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Casper

Despite this being released smack bang in the middle of my childhood I somehow never saw it. It's exactly what you'd expect from a 90's family film. It's great. Not to sound like an old lady but... they just don't make 'em like they used to. So much better than the majority of the sterile paint by numbers muck that's peddled at kids today. The special effects hold up amazingly well too. They're better than a lot more recent things I've seen. There was clearly a peak for CGI years ago but they kept on going and now we're where we are today with it.

Megamind
Released a few months after Despicable Me in 2010 and having a similar basic plot (super villain turns good) I think this one got lost a bit and Despicable Me got all the love. Personally I thought Megamind was better, much better. Other than the Minions being vaguely amusing Despicable Me did nothing for me. Megamind on the other hand was funny and had a decent story line and character development. I did think Brad Pitt was kind of awful in it though, clearly not a voice actor.

MJ23

Watched The Butler tonight. Really good movie. Story told very well, and the way they age the characters is done brilliantly.

Marty McFly

So been sick the last two days and flicking through sky saw the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and decided sure I'll give them a re watch its been a long time.

I did enjoy them first time around but never got the hype and hysteria that followed them and after re watching can say they haven't aged well.

The battle scenes were the only thing that kept me watching to be honest man does Peter Jackson know how to drag the balls out of a story. Some of the acting was terrible no wonder Liv Tyler doesn't be seen to much anymore.

The CGI suprisingly has aged very badly indeed some parts looking very amateur or low budget especially for films that aren't that old, as someone said earlier Casper still looks really well done and was a few years ahead of this.

Not looking forward to having to sit through the two Hobbit films after this, have promised the girlfriend will watch the first installment tomorrow so we can go see the second one in the cinema :cool:.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Marty McFly wrote: »

The battle scenes were the only thing that kept me watching to be honest man does Peter Jackson know how to drag the balls out of a story. Some of the acting was terrible no wonder Liv Tyler doesn't be seen to much anymore.

You can excuse LOTR being 3 films as it was 3 books, but how he's managed to split The Hobbit, a book I read with no great trouble when I was 11, into 3 really long films too, I do not know.

DazMarz

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was extremely overrated. I was never a big fan of swords and sorcery and fantasy and all that anyway (but I'm a huge Star Wars fan, go figure). I watched them purely for the reason that EVERYONE was going to see them and was banging on about them. Underwhelmed.

Some of the set-pieces and individual battle scenes are brilliant. But other areas, yeah... it drags like a bitch.

Sean Bean was one of the best things about it (he's a sinfully underrated actor and is eminently watchable in even the worst dross) and

they killed him off in the first film!!! Suppose, he's the guy who gets killed in everything, right?

As for the CGI, I've flicked through a few scenes, and my god, yes. In the 10 years or so, it has aged woefully. And other films have not aged half as bad (I will always hold up Terminator 2: Judgement Day as a film that has aged like wine; I don't think that even with today's technology there's a helluva lot could be improved upon bar smoothing a few edges. It's almost flawless effects wise, and it came out in 1991!).

So yeah, the LOTR is not the second coming of films, as some people make out. Nail on head.

And the reason why The Hobbit is three films? As Gordon Gekko said: "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good!" Three films = three times the box office money. Simples.

krudler

Marty McFly wrote: »

So been sick the last two days and flicking through sky saw the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and decided sure I'll give them a re watch its been a long time.

I did enjoy them first time around but never got the hype and hysteria that followed them and after re watching can say they haven't aged well.

The battle scenes were the only thing that kept me watching to be honest man does Peter Jackson know how to drag the balls out of a story. Some of the acting was terrible no wonder Liv Tyler doesn't be seen to much anymore.

The CGI suprisingly has aged very badly indeed some parts looking very amateur or low budget especially for films that aren't that old, as someone said earlier Casper still looks really well done and was a few years ahead of this.

Not looking forward to having to sit through the two Hobbit films after this, have promised the girlfriend will watch the first installment tomorrow so we can go see the second one in the cinema :cool:.

Usually Liv Tyler showing up and doing her "I'll talk really slowly and breathlessly to convey important things" routine it's tea or bathroom break time when watching them.

Judgement Day

"Fraulein Doktor" (1969) on YouTube.
A strange WW.I. spy film with a mainly British cast including Suzy Kendall, Kenneth Moore, Nigel Green and James Booth. The movie opens with the assassination of Lord Kitchener as he sails for Russia from Scapa Flow and then moves to Europe where the the Fraulein Doktor of the title (Suzy Kendall) is involved in a plot to steal Allied Plans. It's a poorly directed film with the only high point being a very realistic, grisly representation of a German gas attack on the Allied trenches. Filmed in Yugoslavia and Italy there was obviously no budgetary constraints on extras for the battle scenes! A poor musical score by the legendary Ennio Morricone does little to lift this beyond the mediocre. 4/10

Tipsy McSwagger

DazMarz wrote: »

The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was extremely overrated. I was never a big fan of swords and sorcery and fantasy and all that anyway (but I'm a huge Star Wars fan, go figure). I watched them purely for the reason that EVERYONE was going to see them and was banging on about them. Underwhelmed.

Some of the set-pieces and individual battle scenes are brilliant. But other areas, yeah... it drags like a bitch.

Sean Bean was one of the best things about it (he's a sinfully underrated actor and is eminently watchable in even the worst dross) and

they killed him off in the first film!!! Suppose, he's the guy who gets killed in everything, right?

As for the CGI, I've flicked through a few scenes, and my god, yes. In the 10 years or so, it has aged woefully. And other films have not aged half as bad (I will always hold up Terminator 2: Judgement Day as a film that has aged like wine; I don't think that even with today's technology there's a helluva lot could be improved upon bar smoothing a few edges. It's almost flawless effects wise, and it came out in 1991!).

So yeah, the LOTR is not the second coming of films, as some people make out. Nail on head.

And the reason why The Hobbit is three films? As Gordon Gekko said: "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good!" Three films = three times the box office money. Simples.

The Star Wars trilogy is seriously overrated. A decent first film, a brilliant second and a third with teddy bears throwing stones at metal walkers.

krudler

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The Star Wars trilogy is seriously overrated. A decent first film, a brilliant second and a third with teddy bears throwing stones at metal walkers.

Empire is by far and away the best SW movie, it's also the one Lucas considers the "boring" one, which speaks volumes about it. Damn boring things like characters, story arcs and plot revelations, there's barely any falling down in it either.

DazMarz

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The Star Wars trilogy is seriously overrated. A decent first film, a brilliant second and a third with teddy bears throwing stones at metal walkers.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

But... but... but... The Force! Lightsabres! HAN SOLO, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!




Whatever you're into, man. I think LOTR is overrated, you think it's Star Wars. Each to their own. It's what makes life interesting. I think nostalgia plays a huge part for me. I grew up on Star Wars, so I'll always love those films.

krudler

Can't I like both? I love the original SW trilogy and the LOTR movies. Both series have their serious shortcomings but it's all balanced out by the good stuff.

johnny_ultimate

krudler wrote: »

Can't I like both?

Nope. Banned.

reginaflange

The Prestige. Good film, good twist.

Mickeroo

Marty McFly wrote: »

So been sick the last two days and flicking through sky saw the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and decided sure I'll give them a re watch its been a long time.

I did enjoy them first time around but never got the hype and hysteria that followed them and after re watching can say they haven't aged well.

The battle scenes were the only thing that kept me watching to be honest man does Peter Jackson know how to drag the balls out of a story. Some of the acting was terrible no wonder Liv Tyler doesn't be seen to much anymore.

The CGI suprisingly has aged very badly indeed some parts looking very amateur or low budget especially for films that aren't that old, as someone said earlier Casper still looks really well done and was a few years ahead of this.

Not looking forward to having to sit through the two Hobbit films after this, have promised the girlfriend will watch the first installment tomorrow so we can go see the second one in the cinema :cool:.

I think the reason Casper works so well is the same reason the CGI in The Mask has aged really well too (imo). It was deliberately done to look cartoonish, with LOTR it was supposed to look real which is always going to age badly imo. It's the same way old stop motion stuff looks a bit naff now.

As for Terminator 2, some of the scenes in that still look amazing but some look awful too (when the T1000 explodes near the end for example). I think metal, liquid or otherwise is just easier to render than living breathing creatures, same reason the CGI in Transformers holds up pretty well too. Though you'd have to wonder how they made liquid metal look so bad in the latest Hobbit film.

Jurassic Park is kind of the exception to the rule, the T-Rex scene puts a lot of modern CGI to shame still, but I think that might be down to them having the scene take place at night in the rain and the use of animatronic models to compliment it. Lots of the other CG parts in the film look crap now though.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

Jurassic Park is kind of the exception to the rule, the T-Rex scene puts a lot of modern CGI to shame still, but I think that might be down to them having the scene take place at night in the rain and the use of animatronic models to compliment it. Lots of the other CG parts in the film look crap now though.

The T-Rex is a perfect example of how CGI should be used, to compliment other physical effects and be blended seamlessly. The daylight stampede has aged alright but the majority of shots in it hold up, for me the biggest thing with realistic CGI is the one thing so many films get wrong, weight. Floaty unnatural movement is the biggest giveaway, with humans you'll nearly always see the joins.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think the reason Casper works so well is the same reason the CGI in The Mask has aged really well too (imo). It was deliberately done to look cartoonish, with LOTR it was supposed to look real which is always going to age badly imo. It's the same way old stop motion stuff looks a bit naff now.

I was thinking the same about Casper. Even when some of the human characters became ghosts they were cartoon like versions of the actors. Also, they built real sets for the house. I find this helps a lot with CGI heavy films, using it as little as possible. Look at the progression of Tim Burton's films, they went from mainly real sets with CGI thrown in where necessary to being pretty much 100% green screen.

krudler

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I was thinking the same about Casper. Even when some of the human characters became ghosts they were cartoon like versions of the actors. Also, they built real sets for the house. I find this helps a lot with CGI heavy films, using it as little as possible. Look at the progression of Tim Burton's films, they went from mainly real sets with CGI thrown in where necessary to being pretty much 100% green screen.

I saw some of Alice In Wonderland and my god it's an awful looking film, it looks like a bad videogame in places. It may as well have had no human characters at all for the amount of CGI ones in it. Like those oh so bland Robert Zemeckis films, I watched the Jim Carrey Christmas Carol last week and it's horrid looking, can never get past that dead eyed animation.

Tipsy McSwagger

DazMarz wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

But... but... but... The Force! Lightsabres! HAN SOLO, FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!




Whatever you're into, man. I think LOTR is overrated, you think it's Star Wars. Each to their own. It's what makes life interesting. I think nostalgia plays a huge part for me. I grew up on Star Wars, so I'll always love those films.

I like SW and have it on blu ray but its seriously overrated. As for LOTR i love the book but have a ton of issues with the films.

johnny_ultimate

The Lost Weekend - Billy Wilder directs this tale of one alcoholic's desperate weekend. A bit OTT and dated in some respects, but it remains a stark, intense and largely uncompromising attempt at documenting addiction. Ray Milland is excellent as Don, but most curious are those surrounding him - how they enable and attempt to deal with Don's ever spiraling problem. Whether it's the loving, affectionate girlfriend, the frustrated brother or the unsympathetic, 'tell it as it is' male nurse, it's the supporting cast that lends this films its depth, with even kindness potentially destructive. Also worth noting the cinematography - the telling highlighting of important objects, the intense close-ups and surreal tangents give the viewer an often uncomfortably intimate access to this character's world, regularly one step ahead of him.

Monster's University - it's watchable and entertaining, and no Cars 2. But there's just this sense of pointlessness about it all, and an unimaginative plot structure (it's basically just every college comedy ever made, with monsters) lacks the energy and compelling focus of the film's predecessor. A complication like Boo is sorely missed. Frankly, the small insights we get into the two main characters could have been handled in a brief prologue or short film, and even the setpieces seem a revision or two away from leaping off the screen. Fun enough, and the character designs alone make it worth a look, but another meek and underwhelming feature from an increasingly bland Pixar, a prequel where commercial motivations overwhelm the artistic ones. Hopefully the two year gap between their next films will give them the vibrancy and imagination we have been led to expect. Really, the only reason Monster's University disappoints is their own high standards.

All is Lost - Gravity at sea, without the character arc and metaphors. An unnamed man (Robert Redford) we know nothing about, stuck alone in a damaged yacht in the middle of the ocean. The film's leanness is exactly what the film needs - bar a brief and vague voiceover letter at the beginning, this is just about a man stuck in an increasingly desperate situation, with about 20 words spoken over the course of 100 minutes. There's a few leaps of faith required - misfortune after misfortune! - but it's a lean and intense tale of survival against the element. Redford excels in a physically grueling role, his character attempting to will himself to survive against extreme odds. The storm sequences are particularly vividly rendered. A rigid adherence to its concept makes this one of the most extreme and well-realised 'one person, one setting' films out there. There's no internal monologue, no talking to himself (bar a desperate obscenity at one point), no emotional phonecalls, which actually makes it a far more radical and experimental effort than one typically sees in a multiplex. Lacks anything in the way of depth - it's borderline documentary in its approach, barring the regular dramatic license it employs - but that's the whole point.

Greed - The 4-hour reconstructed version of Erich von Stroheim's epic 1924 masterpiece. It consists of the roughly two and a bit hour long released version stitched together with stills and intertitles to partially restore another two hours or so of subplots and even whole characters that were excised during MGM's infamously ruthless editing. In the absence of an original cut - said to have been upwards of 9 and a half hours long - this is the only way to get an idea of the scope of von Stroheim's achievement. And some achievement it is: a dark and daring account of a dentist named McTeague and his new wife: chance and their own inescapable human natures conspiring to lead them down a tragic path. A number of subplots - one of two elderly neighbours, another of a beggar and a junk salesman - help add nuance to this tale of the corrupting power of greed and jealousy, as does powerful montage editing that constantly compares and contrasts these stories and people (and even animals). It culminates in one of cinema's most famous sequences - McTeague and his one time best friend Marcus stranded in Death Valley, driven to near madness. Tinted in yellow (a colour motif employed throughout), it's a truly miserable, mesmerising finale. Greed is beautifully complex and unromantic, and although we'll likely never seen von Stroheim's original vision, what we are lucky enough to have more than testifies to its brilliance.

krudler

Monster's University - it's watchable and entertaining, and no Cars 2. But there's just this sense of pointlessness about it all, and an unimaginative plot structure (it's basically just every college comedy ever made, with monsters) lacks the energy and compelling focus of the film's predecessor. A complication like Boo is sorely missed. Frankly, the small insights we get into the two main characters could have been handled in a brief prologue or short film, and even the setpieces seem a revision or two away from leaping off the screen. Fun enough, and the character designs alone make it worth a look, but another meek and underwhelming feature from an increasingly bland Pixar, a prequel where commercial motivations overwhelm the artistic ones. Hopefully the two year gap between their next films will give them the vibrancy and imagination we have been led to expect.

The only film of theirs I'd be interested to see a sequel to is The Incredibles, and at this rate it's 10 years since the original so I doubt it'd happen, never say never though. I'm far more interested in How To Train Your Dragon 2 than anything Pixar have done lately, the original was a total surprise and is one of the best major animated films in years.

TheMollusc

A Serious Man (2009)

Watched this again after having recorded it quite a while back. Loved it the first time and glad to say that I really enjoyed the rewatch.

A Serious Man is an often overlooked film in the crowded, competitive filmography that belongs to Joel and Ethan Coen. It was nominated for Best Picture of course, but not even that seemed to bring it to as large an audience as this film deserved. It is one of their smaller films, more personal too, but make no mistake that this is another terrific effort from two terrific filmmakers.

The Coen's sharpness, humour and nihilism is as present as it ever has been. This is a black comedy that almost seems to laugh through it's own tears. A film that's ultimate theme is about the chaos and unpredictability that is always present in life, we try to understand it but at the end of the day life can't be understood or deciphered, and there is nothing you can do about it. Simply accept it. Accept the mystery.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

krudler wrote: »

I saw some of Alice In Wonderland and my god it's an awful looking film, it looks like a bad videogame in places. It may as well have had no human characters at all for the amount of CGI ones in it. Like those oh so bland Robert Zemeckis films, I watched the Jim Carrey Christmas Carol last week and it's horrid looking, can never get past that dead eyed animation.

Oh, it's awful isn't it. I hate that motion capture stuff, if that's what it's called. If you're going to go to all that trouble and clearly have to have the actors come in and do that much filming anyway, why not make a live action film?

krudler wrote: »

The only film of theirs I'd be interested to see a sequel to is The Incredibles, and at this rate it's 10 years since the original so I doubt it'd happen, never say never though. I'm far more interested in How To Train Your Dragon 2 than anything Pixar have done lately, the original was a total surprise and is one of the best major animated films in years.

How To Train Your Dragon is one of my favorite films, animated or otherwise. Saw the trailer for the 2nd one the other day and I am cautiously optimistic about it.