Last movie impressions

[gamevet]

Originally Posted by RandomRob

And I liked T3- It had a surprise down-ending and the best truck chase/property damage scene EVER.

T3 was alright and the action sequences were pretty amazing. I wasn't that impressed with Conner though. We saw John's leadership take front stage in T2, while he seemed to take a step back in T3.

[RandomRob]

That's true, Nick Stahl's Conner was a little blah, but Arnold was in rare form.. I thought the scene where he freaks and shuts himself down was one of his better bits 'o acting.

[frogofdeath]

The problem with T3 is that it completely contradicts what was set forth by James Cameron in the first two.

T2: "You have some impact on how your life turns out."

T3: "Never mind that last movie, things are pre-determined, get used to it."

I have no problem with a bummer of an ending, but the fact that the movie completely disregarded what came before is ridiculous. However, as mentioned, the truck chase scene was good fun and even the ending was at least not "predictable" (though I thought it was pretty obvious what was going to happen).

Salvation on the other hand had more going against it: 1)No Arnold, which yes is a big part of the franchise and no a super-imposed head does not count. 2)PG-13 rating, what the hell!? 3)Directed by Mc G, enough said.

Yet, with these, and many other cons going in, it turned out quite enjoyable. Unlike the third movie, in Salvation the acting wasn't horrible, the story was decent, and I actually was interested in what would happen with some of the characters. Still, as previously mentioned, the movie was missing something, but overall a good mindless flick.

And as a total aside:
Even with all his success, I feel like James Cameron may still be undervalued for what he does.

[RandomRob]

I think the Abyss in it's complete form was his magnum opus.

Everything since has been about cashing in on fads, be it the grave robbing (IMO) of the Titanic or trying to jam 3D televisions down our throats. As an artist I put him on par with the likes of Paul McCartney ($$$)

But he is a great SFX pioneer. His miniature work is legendary.

[crackajack]

Meet the Spartans
I really liked 300. But you can't make a spoof movie of it. The problem is predestined that it can't be as funny as 300. 300 is so ridiculously serious that it really get's funny sometimes, especially on second and third view.

Some laughs, but most of the time boring.
Where is good old Spaceballs quality?

[Doug Troy]

Originally Posted by crackajack

Some laughs, but most of the time boring.
Where is good old Spaceballs quality?

Dead. Gone. Cremated. Ashes scattered to the winds. Not even the Zuckers have it anymore.

Most of the current crop of parody and spoof makers have forgotten that the most important part of comedy is that you don't stop after you tell the joke. You don't point the joke out, you don't pause and go "Eh? Eh? I know, right!" and you don't have a "Time to make fun of this thing from a couple years back!" section.

A good parody joke shouldn't be obvious. It should be a reward for those paying attention. Here's how it's done properly.


Another important thing about good parodies is that they are incredibly similar in structure to that which they mock. You can't just have a bunch of random references happen and call it a parody, you have to replicate the tone and feel of what you wish to mock. Doing so calls forth a feeling of familiarity from the viewer and makes it easier to draw laughs when you turn it on its ear.

Which brings me to the other thing a parody NEEDS to be funny and not be just the visual brainchild of a bunch of addled guffawing dipshits: fondness for the source material. You're not trying to pummel the fans of the source material, you're trying to poke fun at that which they like and get them to laugh with you at all the little things.

Case in point, one of the better parodies I've seen in years: Black Dynamite


It's obvious they love the source material, but they also understand what makes the originals hokey and ridiculous.

tl;dr Hollywood has forgotten how to make good parodies.

[RandomRob]

Watching it now, I think the greatest strength of Tron is that it comes from a time when the older generation saw computers as business machines; at best, extensions of calculators and typewriters, but nothing more. The younger generation saw the inherent possibilities of a free communication network filled with the creative energy of millions of programmers, and how it would escalate into something larger than anyone would've imagined, and the movie Tron was a celebratory nod to that spirit.

Not terribly deep, but not without heart, it still has a nerdy charm.

To the Hi-Def enthusiasts who are fans I wholeheartedly recommend this disc. The artwork of the film has been lovingly restored. Not improved, just returned to how it looked 20 some odd years ago. There are still some things in it that are defining moments both for videogames and film, that opening reveal of the whirling insides of CLU's tank, for example.



Just gorgeous, even now.

[Li-Ion]

Toy Story 3
About the end of childhood and letting go. I really like that movie. After the second part which I found ok but forgettable number 3 brings it back and onto a new level.

@Tron:
Watched it just before the new Tron came out and I really don't get why it's such a cult classic. Maybe I'd see it different if I would have watched it when it came out.

[RandomRob]

It was a watershed of hi concept computer art at a time when most practical computer graphics looked like...





It really foreshadowed an artistic interest in computers that hadn't happened yet. These days people take this sort of thing for granted, but at the time, it was a rather hi-concept and experimental movie for Disney to be involved in. I remember being overwhelmed by the imagery of it when I saw it at age 14.

It also boldy suggested that there might be a battle for control of a free communication network between the forces of big business and private citizens.

[crackajack]

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Kind of has the spirit of a Be Kind Rewind/ sweded movie.
Sort of bizarre sometimes but in the end also very likeable.

Lord of the Rings (1978)
The visuals must have been more than ok at its release but with painted over and sometimes just weirdly colored real scenes it reminds me of how Monthy Python acted in their Grail movie. It must have been a great amount of work to do it but it looks cheap in the end.
It's most of the time true to the source material, and Peter Jackson obviously has seen this movie since he some scenes are quite similar, but overall his new version is much better. It takes the needed time to tell the story, it doesn't cram 1 and a half book into a little over 2 hours, which can't work for an epic tale LotR is.
It would have needed a lot more budget to realize it those days, but if it would not have half failed we might have never gotten the Jackson version.

Far Cry
Making a movie of a game is usually no good idea.
Making a movie of Far Cry seems like no good idea at all, since the story was craptastic.
Uew Boll as the movie maker is usually making the potential of the story even worse.
And all those apprehensions were true. He took the surprise moment (there are monsters uh oh) of the game and told that right in the beginning. So even the small chance of a half decent movie was screwed right in the beginning.
Til Schweiger as the retired lazy drunk veteran ... ok, now i got... you have to perceive it as a comedy not an action movie... and then it's really half decent.

[Li-Ion]

@RandomRob: I am fully aware of all that, but I still don't like the movie

@Crackajack: Far Cry isn't even the worst, Alone in the Dark is still the worst movie I have seen to this date.

@Topic: Blitz with Jason Statham. It's better than his last movie (the mechanic or the janitor or something like that) and its a more serious one than his most popular (crank, transporter). Blitz is more akin to the (underappreciated) Bank Job than to Transporter. The acting is (surprisingly) solid and all, but the movie has one problem, actually two: it has no beginning. And it has no real end. It just starts somewhere and follows the life of some people, in between a lot of brutal murder and then it just ends somewhere. No real conclusion for most of the threads the story consisted of, as there was no explanation where they all came from. A lot of people get a bit of screentime and it's never clear who's important and who will disappear again after 5 minutes.

I read somewhere it's based on a series of currently seven books. If that's true then this movie feels like someone took the middle one and tried to make an isolated movie about it.

[Li-Ion]

Saw Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, followed by Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, just before watching Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Seeing a pattern here?

Yes, after seeing the first Harry Potter some years back I decided to give this part of pop-culture a shot. Seeing as its ending now with 7-2 I got the entire set of movies out so far from a friend (who wants to remain anonymous) and might even watch the last one in the cinema. Maybe.

Watching all that in rapid succession leads to all movies joining in some kind of blur, so that I couldn't tell in which movie what exactly happened. Well, apart from the obvious, like matches of quiddich (or however you spell it) and the new teacher being cause of lotsa trouble, thus endangering the lives of students and the existence of the school as a whole. Not that health & safety aspects would be high on the priority list for hogwarth to begin with. Endangering teens and pre-teens seems to be the only way for teachers to gain some reputation in this parallel universe.

HP movies also suffer from serious cases of deus ex machina syndrome. Plus clumsy handling of time travelling including the nerdiest (and weirdest) use of time travel to date. It's all very quirky and... english. I also don't understand the fascination with those quiddich-games. They go on forever and who was ever surprised by the result? They are as easy to follow as cricket, a game that can go on for 3 to 5 days. I think cricket is also a game people start playing during a game of quiddich during the overly boring parts.

Well, it's the Order of the Phoenix next...

[Doug Troy]

Captain America: This one basically washes the horrid taste of Green Lantern away, which is a feat in and of itself. Really, the most concise way for me to describe why I liked Captain America is this: "The Rocketeer meets Indiana Jones". For me, that properly sums up how the movie kept the big grin on my face all the way through.

[crackajack]

Music Box
It begins like many court movies with their hero lawyers but turns into a spine chilling autopsy of the past.

Die verlorene Ehre der Katharina Blum
Although the movie appears odd, overstupified in some moments, it's a great movie about the freedom of press, the fourth power in democracy, and if that's a good thing if it's as limitless and irreversible as it is sometimes with their inaccuracies or plain lies.

Salami Aleikum
Brilliant culture clash comedy about a Persian general, a butcher apprentice who rather knits than ever kill an animal, an east german female mechanic who formerly was a shotputter, chinese businessmans and of course some sheeps or rather their wool.

[crackajack]

Push
Jumper meets Dnevnoy dozor or so. The ending was even disappointing with low expectations i had to had after the nonsense happening in the middle.
Beside that it was so bad that it was almost good.
At the end i felt like i have seen a pilot to a series that never happened.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Liked it a lot. Had laughs and more depth than i expected.