What is the latest movie you watched and what did you think of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

Idol, the Wicker Man is another movie I enjoy and knowing that it was a Hollywood remake of a classic british film with Nicholas Cage as the star, the only way I will watch it is if someone nails me to a chair in front of a screen and tapes my eyelids open.

---

Edward Woodword is pure class while Nic Cage is pure something else.Anyway for English language films nothing tops the Brits for being able to create an underlying but undefinable sense of dread.
Ok maybe hillbillies /southern gothic hence probably the relocation of Straw Dogs from Cornwall to Mississippi.

As for Lost in Space and Starsky and Hutch I totally agree.Lost in Space was just ridiculous and turning Starsky and Hutch into a comedy was just a bad idea which the casting only made worse(see Green Hornet).

I didn't hate Miami Vice even though it basically missed the entire point . There were still some nice bits though like the scene with Gina facing down the Aryan which is an obvious homage to Don Johnston's "Maybe you won't even twitch". That and Edward James Olmos' Lt Castillo was sorely missed but then again Phillip Michael Thomas not so much.
Btw PMT gave one of the most regrettable quotes ever when flush with the initial success of the old series he bragged how he was going to win an Emmy ,Grammy ,Oscar,Tony ( the laughable EGOT) in the next few years.:mellow:

Another tidbit about Phillip Michael Thomas, during production of the original series, in which he always stressed he was a ladies man, he announced that he wanted to release a line of designer womens lingerie, the idea never came of anything probably because he wanted his initials to signify the brand and a woman wandering around with PMT on her jim-jams wasn't ever going to go over well....

Contagion. 5/10
I thought it was going to be awesome! So maybe I hyped myself up too much for this one.

And Kimjongilia - 8/10
Very interesting.

Transformers: The Dark Side of Nimoy.

It all boils down to this...
How does a film with an unlimited budget depict Washington DC so inaccurately?
I'm not being a curmudgeon on this seemingly trivial point, I think it's the underlying problem with the whole movie.

It was a given that Transformers was going to be a CGI sausagefest and huge swaths would be pure imagination...we all knew that going in.
This sort of digital wizardry works best when tethered to a recognizable reality (for example, think of the opening scene of Star Wars and the "apes in the trees" from Rise of the Apes...both amazing visuals but the apes seem "real" while the spaceships are "cool", you know they're fake) and the imagineers of Transformers are too lazy to make DC even remotely realistic, so their chances of making the major CGI plausible were slim.

Basically, none of the big action setpieces make any more sense than the Bizarro world Washington DC.
Of course, the nonsensical CGI pales before the conundrum at the heart of the franchise...how does Wit(less)wicki manage to get these smokin hot girlfriends?
Related question: who in Hollywood decided that Shia LaBoeuf was an action hero/franchise star?
Because really, he isn't.

3:10 to yuma
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381849/
nice movie
8/10

Meet Bill 8.5/10

Aaron Eckhart first got my attention in Thank You for Smoking (which I give a 9.5/10). I found it strange that a movie this good with a cast of actors & actresses I enjoy, like Olyphant (Justified), Wiig (SNL), and Alba (google image search), somehow managed to slip my attention for several years. I happened to catch the title and synopsis while browsing Hulu's movies. It's for the most part a comedy, about a guy having a bit of a crisis (identity crisis?). Sometimes I really enjoy movies that just drag your mood down with them (Everything Must Go), but this stays pretty light, and things don't actually get that bad for him... so it's actually nothing like those types of movies.

Company Men // 2010

A socialistic view about corporate businesses during the economic crisis. Ben Affleck went from dropout construction worker (Good Will Hunting) to a successful Sales position for GTX (Company Men). The plot is as follows (quoted from RT):

Quote:

---

Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) is living the American dream: great job, beautiful family, shiny Porsche in the garage. When corporate downsizing leaves him and co-workers Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) and Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones) jobless, the three men are forced to re-define their lives as men, husbands, and fathers.

Bobby soon finds himself enduring enthusiastic life coaching, a job building houses for his brother-in-law (Kevin Costner) which does not play to his executive skill set, and perhaps the realization that there is more to life than chasing the bigger, better deal. With humor, pathos, and keen observation, writer-director John Wells (the creator of "ER") introduces us to the new realities of American life. -- (C) Weinstein

---

I hardly noticed any of the plot in the film, if it was it was watered down to the point you didn't notice it. The plot jumped from place to place without finishing events. For instance, Bobby being redefined as a "good" father is shooting a hoop (literally) with his son.

The latest film was Star Wars: A New Hope, which I had not seen since early childhood. A friend recommended that I revisit the original trilogy, so I am doing so. Unfortunately, most of the characters are shallow archetypes; Han Solo as the dashing rogue, C-3PO as comic relief, etc. Backstory was minimally provided, and every attempt at instilling some sense of purpose to Luke Skywalker's decision of assisting the rebels fell flat. I mean, the film only lingered for around 5 seconds on the smoking, skeletal remains of his parents before moving back to Luke, who seemed mildly irritated. The whole premise struck me as absurd, and characters are pulled along on strings to suit the overarching plot, which is equally ridiculous. Don't even get me started on the dialogue, which was cringe-inducing and could have been written by an 8-year-old. Humor has its place, but casual jesting while stormtrooper rifles are sending laser pulses 2 inches from your face doesn't strike me as realistic in the least.

The only redeeming quality is the Star Wars universe itself, which is filled with breathtaking settings, a plethora of alien creatures, and varied worlds spanning across an entire galaxy. If only the characters who populated it had convincing motives and were part of a coherent story.

Two words,space opera.
There is science ,there is fiction and then there is science fiction.Fine you didn't "buy into it" I can live with that but lambasting a movie especially a sci-fi one for being "unrealistic" is just silly.:ermm:

On another wholly opposing note I believe that the characters are what carry the film and your criticisms speak only to the now dated nature of the movie and not to it's initial quality.
( An exceedingly small) Part of what was bad about the ensuing series(ie Episodes 1-3) is that unlike the original(s) the characters were basically unlikable and consequently no one ended up caring in the least about them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glod

The latest film was Star Wars: A New Hope, which I had not seen since early childhood. A friend recommended that I revisit the original trilogy, so I am doing so. Unfortunately, most of the characters are shallow archetypes; Han Solo as the dashing rogue, C-3PO as comic relief, etc. Backstory was minimally provided, and every attempt at instilling some sense of purpose to Luke Skywalker's decision of assisting the rebels fell flat. I mean, the film only lingered for around 5 seconds on the smoking, skeletal remains of his parents before moving back to Luke, who seemed mildly irritated. The whole premise struck me as absurd, and characters are pulled along on strings to suit the overarching plot, which is equally ridiculous. Don't even get me started on the dialogue, which was cringe-inducing and could have been written by an 8-year-old. Humor has its place, but casual jesting while stormtrooper rifles are sending laser pulses 2 inches from your face doesn't strike me as realistic in the least.

The only redeeming quality is the Star Wars universe itself, which is filled with breathtaking settings, a plethora of alien creatures, and varied worlds spanning across an entire galaxy. If only the characters who populated it had convincing motives and were part of a coherent story.

---

While a little less harsh about your summation than my mildly irritated Canadian friend (he still hasn't recovered from his trip to the woods), I think you need to take classic movies at face value for their time in order to enjoy them. Society has changed a great deal in the last 3 decades since the original Star Wars trilogy was produced, particularly morals and how people actually interact with one and other. For it's time Star Wars was cutting edge in so many ways and in terms of the acting the actors were actually far more emotional than in a lot of 70's and early 80's movies, where most of the time dark and brooding and saying not very much was a sign of being 'cool'. If you go back and look at most of the classic Sci-Fi movies from the 70's (which reminds me, time for me to review a classic) the acting did seem 'wooden' by modern standards and alot of the motivations are left unexplained.

This is as much to do with the style of movies being produced at the time as it does with the quality of the acting, and I would hardly say that Sir Alec Guiness and Harrison Ford are exactly slouches as actors. Also Star Wars was the first time that a robot was ever really imbued with a likeable personality for a movie, yet this was such a hit that many other movies within a few years had tried to emulate this feat (Black Hole, Buck Rogers etc.) so the character development overall (for the time) was far more in depth that we see from alot of movies from that era.

I find in general, in 70's movies that alot of motivations are simply left unexplained, I often find myself going huh ? but have accepted that this seems to be something to do with the style of the era in general. Charles Bronson made a massive career in the 70's out of wasting entire gangloads of baddies, while saying very little, looking deeply and smoulderingly around at every one, and with little or no dialogue as to why, the same with Chuck Norris. In these movies there is one or two cruel acts perpetrated on the good guy by the baddies, then he snaps and goes on a murder spree which we are supposed to cheer, while showing little emotion and explaining himself (themselves) not one jot.

Pithy witticisms were also par for the course for alot of movies of this time, once again Arnold Schwarzenegger made as much of a career out of pithy one liners as he did with his huge muscles dispensing hundreds of bad doodz in a single sitting.

I believe in general to truly enjoy movies from these era's you have to move past your preconceptions, and take them for the classics that they are, far more inventive and capable of transporting us to another world more easily and believably than the current crop of schlock, that is simply trying to out effect each other in a 'my one's bigger than your one' contest while sacrificing any real character development or depth and layering to the movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

I believe in general to truly enjoy movies from these era's you have to move past your preconceptions, and take them for the classics that they are, far more inventive and capable of transporting us to another world more easily and believably than the current crop of schlock, that is simply trying to out effect each other in a 'my one's bigger than your one' contest while sacrificing any real character development or depth and layering to the movie.

---

@Glod: One of Star Wars' greatest feats was how far forward it pushed special effects at the time. When comparing a classic to newer films, it is VERY important the viewer keeps in mind all of the new ground/next-level that film brings to the genre. One of the characteristics of the Sci-Fi genre is, of course, special effects. Lucas developed (or improved) so many techniques with these movies that he started Lucasfilm which is still one of the largest, most advanced production companies in the world. Not only were the SE's ahead of their time, but the creation of multi-channel theater sound resulted, as well.

Movies are remembered for what they contributed to the body of works as a whole, and Star Wars is undeniably one of those films that sent permanent ripples through the industry- and changed consumers' expectations as to what could be done from that point on.

The latest film was "Trade",it's an awesome movie...about child trafficking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducray

The latest film was "Trade",it's an awesome movie...about child trafficking.

---

Awesome? From that, can we assume a high amount of interest in the subject matter? :unsure:

If you like children, then you should also think child trafficking is awesome. It supposedly reduced the occurrences of child injury and death

Attachment 87463

Good point. Hopefully a cop won't issue them tickets for walking in a manner he doesn't like... Feet- one in front of the other. No shuffling!

Die Hard 2
After long tym :-)
It is better than Die Hard 1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vikrant

Die Hard 2
After long tym :-)
It is better than Die Hard 1

---

No you liked it better than Die Hard 1.
The only thing "better" about Die Hard 2 was that ,as is pretty requisite for sequels, everything was "bigger". Other than that all it did regurgitate,not expand,on everything that happened in the first movie.
That and all without the presence of Alan Rickman who was obviously the best thing in the original.

Yippy-Kay-Yay Motherfucker.

I watched I Am Number Four .
Sort of set a new high water mark for stupid but was still well done.
The story is about a largely unlikable hero with a hot but bland girlfriend battling aliens with a little transmogrification as a bonus which as I said was technically well done but jaw-droppingly silly yet oddly familiar.
Then the credits rolled and I saw that it was produced by Michael Bay and then everything made sense.:mellow:

After that I downloaded Restraint a little known Australian film starring Stephen Moyer aka " Bill"from True Blood which desperately tries to be a smart kidnapping story but in the end was pretty flat and ultimately unrewarding.
On the plus side it had the woman from I Am Number Four naked. :idunno:

Eagle Eye // 2008

Eagle Eye is about the negative extremes of social media, written by an over protective mother. Having said that it was a decent watch for a lazy Sunday and LaBeouf was actually tolerable.

The Experiment // 2010

About a group of people who volunteered for an experiment about psychology responses. Couldn't help but notice this is a religious film set in the present.

Spoiler: Show

"Red" light represents God, Prisoners are civilians and the Guards are the church

Bit of a WTF moment at the end. It's as if the author/writer got bored and said fuck it I know a perfect way to ruin it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iLOVENZB

Eagle Eye // 2008

Eagle Eye is about the negative extremes of social media, written by an over protective mother. Having said that it was a decent watch for a lazy Sunday and LaBeouf was actually tolerable.

---

You really got that the premise of the movie was to demonstrate the negative extremes of social media?
I thought it was just an easy hook to hang a bunch of silly,clearly impossible stunts on.
Also killing off the only non-one dimensional sympathetic character was just more talentless contrived attempt at easy audience manipulation and added nothing to the story.

About LaBeouf he irritates me less than Justin Timberlake,another "actor" who I can't figure out why he has a career so I give him that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iLOVENZB

Eagle Eye // 2008

Eagle Eye is about the negative extremes of social media, written by an over protective mother. Having said that it was a decent watch for a lazy Sunday and LaBeouf was actually tolerable.

---

You really got that the premise of the movie was to demonstrate the negative extremes of social media?
I thought it was just an easy hook to hang a bunch of silly,clearly impossible stunts on.
Also killing off the only non-one dimensional sympathetic character was just more talentless contrived attempt at easy audience manipulation and added nothing to the story.

About LaBeouf he irritates me less than Justin Timberlake,another "actor" who I can't figure out why he has a career so I give him that.

---

Negative extremes of social media ???? Really ? And here was me thinking it was another rehash of the government is watching you/rogue computer storylines and a plot that required a great deal of suspension of belief, or maybe I just didn't strike my head against the door the requisite number of times first ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Also killing off the only non-one dimensional sympathetic character was just more talentless contrived attempt at easy audience manipulation and added nothing to the story.

---

Before the peremptory bumping off of said multi-dimensional character, he did manage to deliver a brilliant line in characteristic southern drawl:

'If you're staring at me, it better be because I'm the goddamn suspect. Because if I don't get some good leads soon, you're all gonna be demoted into something that's gonna require touching shit with your hands. '

Freerunner (2011) A short review(more or less)

Note to self.
Just because the movie seems popular and the premise sounds interesting and you've heard of the lead actor and parkour is "cool" and the movie is highly rated by (presumably ) special needs children on IMDB, pause for a minute and consider that these are currently the top downloaded movies in btworld then step away from the computer.

Attachment 87688

Seriously if I could grab the director and shove that shaky hand-held camera down his talentless throat.......
Doubly seriously in the realm of" race for your life for the pleasure of the unwashed masses "movies, Freerunner makes Death Race 2000 comparatively look like Shakespeare.

In fact it was so bad I momentarily considered watching Louie instead.:mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

In fact it was so bad I momentarily considered watching Louie instead.:mellow:

---

:o

From that list, I actually liked Horrible Bosses, and to a small degree, Thor. Everything else I've simply refused to watch with the exception of Fast Five, which of course turned out to be as crappy as I expected it to be.

I think you should watch Arena since it has Samuel Jackson and modern day gladiators in it so clearly it can't be bad.

Also (God help me) I watched Spread with(God help me) Ashton Kutcher and Alfie it ain't.

Not even the remake and you have to go a bit to be that bad.

I mean any movie that ends with a shot of a toad being fed a mouse and considers that to be a profound statement on what has previously transpired.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Freerunner (2011) A short review(more or less)

Seriously if I could grab the director and shove that shaky hand-held camera down his talentless throat.......

---

I, too, gave it a shot due to its popularity. I forced myself to stick with it for 10 minutes past the credits. That said, the credits were obnoxious enough to make me reach for the remote- not to hit "stop", but to THROW at the television. The first scene served as a reminder to not shake babies, and the remaining minutes of story outline (which had already repeated the "rules" of the chase game, for those who could not follow its complexity the first time, within 3 minutes) made me appreciate just how "exceptional" the plot and dialog were in Arena and Tactical Force. :frusty:

This is, without exaggeration, worse than anything I have seen in the past 5 years- possibly longer. And not even watchable in terms of "bad movie" snickers. If a group of Down's Syndrome kids made this film, I would be disappointed in their "efforts".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

If a group of Down's Syndrome kids made this film, I would be disappointed in their "efforts".

---

This earned an lol and that makes me think you stole it from me

I am reasonably sure they got a tax break for hiring a cameraman with Parkinson's. :mellow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

Two words,space opera.
There is science ,there is fiction and then there is science fiction.Fine you didn't "buy into it" I can live with that but lambasting a movie especially a sci-fi one for being "unrealistic" is just silly.:ermm:

On another wholly opposing note I believe that the characters are what carry the film and your criticisms speak only to the now dated nature of the movie and not to it's initial quality.
( An exceedingly small) Part of what was bad about the ensuing series(ie Episodes 1-3) is that unlike the original(s) the characters were basically unlikable and consequently no one ended up caring in the least about them.

---

Regarding the realism of the film, the characters portrayed are all humanoid and presumably have a fear response. When you are inches away from death, joking about it is beyond unrealistic, it's downright stupid, and the fact that humor was included at such an otherwise tense moment in the plot disappointed me and somewhat deflated the excitement, since few directors would follow that up with Han Solo's face being blasted off. When they joke around, you know they're going to escape the situation with a witty quip and several pats on the back.

A few of the characters were entertaining in spite of their complete one-dimensionality, but I can't see how you would consider them anything more than that. Luke Skywalker is the epitome of the boy becoming a man, to such a degree that he comes across as a caricature. He's like the All-American, go-get-'em, screw the consequences do-gooder with an enormously lopsided conception of personal responsibility. "Ooh, a princess?! Why, I must save her, obviously!"

I don't particularly care about a film's initial quality. I judge films based on their own merit, regardless of the time period or the intention of its creator. Star Wars: A New Hope is, to my mind, a big and dumb film for teenage boys, and no amount of consideration for its place in film history will change that conclusion. I fully agree that it was technologically impressive for its time, a triumph of the imagination, and extremely influential, but its merit as a film to be enjoyed and appreciated is quite weak.

To you, Artemis, I realize that individuals in that era behaved differently and films in general were drastically different in style. However, the characters compare unfavorably to those of later and earlier films. Two films from the same decade that spring to mind are Annie Hall and Deliverance. Those aren't space operas, but the characterization is clearly much deeper and involves great displays of emotion. Han Solo's motivation was obviously greed, and some others are easy enough to figure out, but the most important ones are markedly absent or painfully rudimentary; they aren't fleshed out, they're led along by invisible strings. Again, Luke Skywalker, the thoughtless protagonist. I attribute much of this to the shoddy writing, which limits the range of an actor's expression. As Harrison Ford said, “George, you can type this shit, but you sure can’t say it.”

Anyway, my judgement of A New Hope isn't preconceived. I simply place no value on historical importance or outdated innovations. The film, as you allude to, is very much part of the '70s, and while it can perhaps be viewed differently with such knowledge held in mind, that has no bearing on its overall quality when evaluated by itself, separate from the competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

While a little less harsh about your summation than my mildly irritated Canadian friend (he still hasn't recovered from his trip to the woods), I think you need to take classic movies at face value for their time in order to enjoy them. Society has changed a great deal in the last 3 decades since the original Star Wars trilogy was produced, particularly morals and how people actually interact with one and other. For it's time Star Wars was cutting edge in so many ways and in terms of the acting the actors were actually far more emotional than in a lot of 70's and early 80's movies, where most of the time dark and brooding and saying not very much was a sign of being 'cool'. If you go back and look at most of the classic Sci-Fi movies from the 70's (which reminds me, time for me to review a classic) the acting did seem 'wooden' by modern standards and alot of the motivations are left unexplained.

This is as much to do with the style of movies being produced at the time as it does with the quality of the acting, and I would hardly say that Sir Alec Guiness and Harrison Ford are exactly slouches as actors. Also Star Wars was the first time that a robot was ever really imbued with a likeable personality for a movie, yet this was such a hit that many other movies within a few years had tried to emulate this feat (Black Hole, Buck Rogers etc.) so the character development overall (for the time) was far more in depth that we see from alot of movies from that era.

I find in general, in 70's movies that alot of motivations are simply left unexplained, I often find myself going huh ? but have accepted that this seems to be something to do with the style of the era in general. Charles Bronson made a massive career in the 70's out of wasting entire gangloads of baddies, while saying very little, looking deeply and smoulderingly around at every one, and with little or no dialogue as to why, the same with Chuck Norris. In these movies there is one or two cruel acts perpetrated on the good guy by the baddies, then he snaps and goes on a murder spree which we are supposed to cheer, while showing little emotion and explaining himself (themselves) not one jot.

Pithy witticisms were also par for the course for alot of movies of this time, once again Arnold Schwarzenegger made as much of a career out of pithy one liners as he did with his huge muscles dispensing hundreds of bad doodz in a single sitting.

I believe in general to truly enjoy movies from these era's you have to move past your preconceptions, and take them for the classics that they are, far more inventive and capable of transporting us to another world more easily and believably than the current crop of schlock, that is simply trying to out effect each other in a 'my one's bigger than your one' contest while sacrificing any real character development or depth and layering to the movie.

---

megabyteme: Agreed on Star Wars' contribution to special effects and film in general. Again, no bearing on the individual quality of A New Hope, at least to me. Influence on other directors doesn't translate to enjoyment by me as a viewer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

@Glod: One of Star Wars' greatest feats was how far forward it pushed special effects at the time. When comparing a classic to newer films, it is VERY important the viewer keeps in mind all of the new ground/next-level that film brings to the genre. One of the characteristics of the Sci-Fi genre is, of course, special effects. Lucas developed (or improved) so many techniques with these movies that he started Lucasfilm which is still one of the largest, most advanced production companies in the world. Not only were the SE's ahead of their time, but the creation of multi-channel theater sound resulted, as well.

Movies are remembered for what they contributed to the body of works as a whole, and Star Wars is undeniably one of those films that sent permanent ripples through the industry- and changed consumers' expectations as to what could be done from that point on.

---

No offense but you're amazingly eloquent for a retard.

Like the Indiana Jones films, the point was to merge the sensibilities and somewhat the structure of the old episodic matinee cliffhangers with the (then ) cutting age technical effects.
If you don't like it or don't "get it" fine but you are basically in effect arguing that just because you think so any music without a 3/4 drumbeat is inherently bad.

Again. Luke Skywalker stereotypical hero ,sort of the point.:mellow:
Also it's not knowing or not knowing what is going to happen , as with a rollercoaster it's all about how enjoyable the predictable thrills are going to be.

On an end note ,I don't disagree about it being pure pulp or Lucas ( as later more evidently proven) being a hack of a writer but Skywaker was the only character in the whole thing to really have any kind of arc to his story so one dimensional no.Initially intentionality a bit too earnest, sure.

Ffs I wasted my 17th millionth post on arguing with an overly serious pseudo cinephile.
And I was really hoping to use that one to try and get laid.

I would appreciate some modicum of civility. The insults are unnecessary and don't substantiate your argument in any way. If it makes you feel better, go ahead, but don't expect much of a response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

No offense but you're amazingly eloquent for a retard.

Like the Indiana Jones films, the point was to merge the sensibilities and somewhat the structure of the old episodic matinee cliffhangers with the (then ) cutting age technical effects.
If you don't like it or don't "get it" fine but you are basically in effect arguing that just because you think so any music without a 3/4 drumbeat is inherently bad.

Again. Luke Skywalker stereotypical hero ,sort of the point.:mellow:
Also it's not knowing or not knowing what is going to happen , as with a rollercoaster it's all about how enjoyable the predictable thrills are going to be.

On an end note ,I don't disagree about it being pure pulp or Lucas ( as later more evidently proven) being a hack of a writer but Skywaker was the only character in the whole thing to really have any kind of arc to his story so one dimensional no.Initially intentionality a bit too earnest, sure.

Ffs I wasted my 17th millionth post on arguing with an overly serious pseudo cinephile.
And I was really hoping to use that one to try and get laid.

---

Like I said overly serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glod

megabyteme: Agreed on Star Wars' contribution to special effects and film in general. Again, no bearing on the individual quality of A New Hope, at least to me. Influence on other directors doesn't translate to enjoyment by me as a viewer.

---

But don't underestimate how much certain pinnacle films have had on the re-hashed versions of "new" movies you are enjoying. There IS something special about ground-breaking efforts. Think of them as an original document compared to one that has been plagiarized. Those who have the creativity, and talent, support generations of those followers who have neither.

@Idol: If Glod wants to get laid, he'll just create a man in his own image. :yup:

You must be a regular barrel of monkeys on a date.

Anyway lacking insult to further my point I would suggest your apparent total lack of what is in scientific terms called the "fun gene " makes it basically impossible for you to like anything that you don't see as being "deep" or as I like to refer to it "why does my head hurt?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme;3618298

But don't underestimate how much certain pinnacle films have had on the re-hashed versions of "new" movies you [I

are[/I] enjoying. There IS something special about ground-breaking efforts. Think of them as an original document compared to one that has been plagiarized. Those who have the creativity, and talent, support generations of those followers who have neither.

---

Star Wars has long been considered to be a rip off of The Hidden Fortress.:unsure:
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
So I was watching the trailer to this movie The Raid and I was thinking to myself at the 1'34'' mark what's the motivation when the guy uses the machete on the other guy's neck?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWlmhMSnVdM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idol

Star Wars has long been considered to be a rip off of The Hidden Fortress.:unsure:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wiki

Influence

George Lucas has acknowledged the key influence of The Hidden Fortress on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope,^[2] particularly the technique of telling the story from the points of view of the film's lowliest characters, C-3PO and R2-D2.^[3][4] Kurosawa's use of frame wipes (sometimes cleverly hidden by motion within the frame) as a transition device also influenced Star Wars.

---

There is still a lot to respect Star Wars for- even though it is not one of my top films.

Quote:

---

So I was watching the trailer to this movie The Raid and I was thinking to myself at the 1'34'' mark what's the motivation when the guy uses the machete on the other guy's neck?

[video]

---

They are Asians, they just do that sort of thing. :idunno:

I thought they used nunchucks and samurai swords and maybe the occasional hammer.

been away for a week and a bit has anything decent been released that's watchable?

no

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Artemis

no

---

thank you it saved me some Google time.

Drive- Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Ron Perlman and Bryan Cranston.

A pretentious load of bullocks, Drive is.
Part Miami Vice visuals, part portentous playlist and acting slowed to a crawl, Drive is only marginally better than Valhalla Rising, the director's previous effort.
The plot is Legoed together from multiple sources and everyone was apparently convinced that extraordinarily long pauses in conversation would be like really deep, man.
The Slowskis (Comcast's turtles) would love this movie.
I have normal reflexes, therefore, I did not.

These days Ron Perlman kinda plays Ron Perlman all the time and Bryan Cranston is de-Heisenberged and re-Haled.
Carey M. is fragile and sweet and I guess is the unattainable "normal" life symbol that Gosling's character longs for, assuming he has emotions that deep.
Most of the time I thought Gosling was either retarded or dead, so "longing" might be beyond his skillset.

Is it really true that you can walk around LA covered in (increasing amounts of) blood and nobody cares?
Cause that's kind of depressing.

Terra Nova (TV: S01E01-02) // 2011
A blockbuster heart with a TV budget

Shit acting, shit sets, shit dinosaurs, shit initial plot ... but room to expand to be a decent popcorn series.

Agreed megabyteme :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by megabyteme

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducray

The latest film was "Trade",it's an awesome movie...about child trafficking.

---

Awesome? From that, can we assume a high amount of interest in the subject matter? :unsure:

---