Jump to content

What Is The Last Film You Watched?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You'd think that creatures like Hutts and Gungans would provide opportunities for Lucas and friends to explore planets with lower gravity than Earth, where either creatures of enormous girth or with long floppy extremities could flourish. Nope. Every planet, every spaceship, every space station...it's all Earth. Earth atmosphere, Earth gravity, Earth environments (albeit, planets of only one Earth environment apiece). I digress. Y'all are gonna think I'm some kind of geek or something.

Perhaps bland and plain are signs of higher intelligence at work. Bells and whistles are child's play, meant to draw attention and excite the imagination. A large black shiny brick with right angles is an unnatural object. Nothing in nature comes close to replicating such an object. Crystals can form such shapes, but those are small; crystals that grow larger than seven feet tall fall victim to random environmental conditions, which prevent them from forming perfectly shaped bricks. I think the monoliths are very impressive in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, even if what wojo says is true, scientists find 2001 a lot more realistic than Star Wars (or any other movie with space travel). In any case, SF doesn't truly have to be realistic (hey, it doesn't exist!) but it's important that it's credible (otherwhise it's fantasy bogus). I believe 2001 still looks very credible today (because it's based on real scientific theories), not to mention beautifully done.

Alex

I still think it looks amazing (and the stargate) and I adore those sequences. However, I don't think the Star Wars argument really holds up because that movie made no attempt to pay attention to realism.

..."or any other movie with space travel."

Including 2010 (which looks more like Star Wars or Alien).

PS: Personally, I think the people of Star Wars did try to make it look somewhat believable. Otherwhise there wouldn't be a kind of semi-realistic tone to it (all the detail, the 'grimy' used look). Of course, it still remains a fantasy fairy tale that only uses 'science fiction' as a fancy background.

Alex

I actually feel that 2010 did make a very conscious effort to stay true to a realistic sci-fi tone, Russian ship aesthetic aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, the current space stations have shown us how the human body deteriorates without any kind of gravity after too long. So that wheel would provide the needed gravity. Maybe in a hundred years or so, when all the world's problems on Earth are solved and humanity works together like family, they'll build something like that giant wheel up in space.

But that *was* the idea of 2001. More advanced space flight technology and people living up there for much longer stretches of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAYNE'S WORLD/WAYNE'S WORLD 2

Still very funny. One of the few Myers creations I can still stand to watch.

THE FANTASTIC FOUR

The unreleased Corman version. Y'know, it has terrible special effects, the acting is pretty average at best and it's all very cheap, but it's got a lot of heart and love for the comic, I'd say more so than the big budget films. And at least Dr. Doom isn't a pussy in this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Julian McMahon but I agree.

I watch Nip/Tuck and it was hard to take him serious as Doom. I kept expecting a scene with him and Sue in some weird sexual moment with Reed walking in on them and joining the fun. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inglorious Basterds: I liked it, but I can't say I was overwhelmed or anything like that.

I was. Extremely enjoyable, awesome cast, and the most amazing Leone sequence Leone never directed. Much of the second half of the film felt wonderfully like an authentic 60s movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of posts concerning "2001"/"2010", so lets take them in no particular order; yes "2010" is dated by the WWIII sub-plot, as is "The Abyss", which was, perhaps wisely, romoved from the released version. "2010" suffers from being, simply, a Peter Hayms film, that being a film populated by wiseasses, paranoids, and know-it-alls. This filmic attutude is fine if it's "Capricorn One", or "Outland"-both films I like, and which are filled with all three-but the subject matter as explored in "2010" needs more respect. The SFX in "2010" are brilliant, but (get ready for a surprise!) the SFX in "2001" are simply the best ever put onto film. What Trumbull, Pedersen, et. al. did, especially in the days before motion control, etc., was nothing short of miraculous! To have that sort of sheer grace up there on screen, compared to what the likes of Derek meddings, etc. were doing, was astonishing. BTW, if anyone doubts that the Stargate sequence is thrilling, then try to see it in 70mm, as I did in London a few years back-what a privilege. Surprisingly, no-one has mentioned the main point about "2001", being that Man has become so de-humamised that all this son et luminaire is taken for granted. It's no surprise that a lot of music in the film is used rather like supermarket, or elevator muzak, it being (in Kubrick's world, at least) so ordinary. I have allinged Alex North's score with the d.v.d., and it is painfully obvious that to have his music played against the film would have missed the point (as good a score as it is). Kubrick needed to have the audience hear familiar music, in order to get his point over. That Kubrick/Clarke dared to say that HAL9000-a computer??!!-is not only the most Human character in the film, but also the most interesting, and the one that the audience most identifies with, showed a prescience unparalleld in film making, which puts all other filmic "predictions" in the shade, for it goes right to the very soul of Man. How many people in this world give more attention, credence, and genuine love to their computers, rather than to other Human Beings? As visually gob-smacking as "2001: A Space Odyssey" is, I hope that The World does not go down that particular path-dull, soulless, and uninterested. I personally would not want a computer to think for me (and here, I am reminded of a line from another film that deals with computers; "Doing our business is what computers are for!") nor would I want it to control me, but it seems that a lot of people do, even if they do not realise it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or ... perhaps Kubrick wanted to get rid of the image of the mad scientist in space who enthusiastically waves his arms, manically pointing to celestial bodies and who is proud of his futuristic electronic devices. Maybe Stanley figured that people who do space missions are highly trained, sober-minded professionals in control of every thinkable situation. I mean, why would mankind receive the 'grand prize' for killing off the "most human character" of the story?

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe 2010 is not just different because it's Peter Hyams instead of Kubrick directing, but also because of Arthur C. Clarke.

2001 was developped by both Clarke and Kubrick. 2010 (and the other 2 books) by Clarke alone.

Certainly it you watch 2001, it feels totally and absolutely like Stanley Kubrick. While (apparently) the novel, penned by Clarke explains a lot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seen a bunch of films...but none as immediatly compelling as Inglourious Basterds. Most fascinating movie of the year. Probably my favorite this year, too. Quite possibly will become my favorite Tarantino, too. The film is interesting in so many different ways...I'm not surprised by the amount of writing that has been done about the film. It stands up to the extensive light it's been put under.

My only problem with the music was the Moroder/Bowie track and the use of Battle of Algiers (mainly because the latter is the only cue in the movie that comes from a film I've seen, and the connotations were not good).

Unforunately missed a chance to attend a local screening with Tarantino, which would have been fun...but this movie is really a tremendous film. First 2009 movie to get me back to theater more than twice? I think so (already got my tickets to the second viewing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seen a bunch of films...but none as immediatly compelling as Inglourious Basterds. Most fascinating movie of the year. Probably my favorite this year, too. Quite possibly will become my favorite Tarantino, too. The film is interesting in so many different ways...I'm not surprised by the amount of writing that has been done about the film. It stands up to the extensive light it's been put under.

I think I can agree with that.

My only problem with the music was the Moroder/Bowie track and the use of Battle of Algiers (mainly because the latter is the only cue in the movie that comes from a film I've seen, and the connotations were not good).

I loved the use of the Bowie song. Not familiar with the Morricone score (aside from a cue from that concert recording, but I don't recall it now) to know which one you're speaking of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Marian was responding to Battle of Algiers, which is indeed Morricone. In IB, it was used in the scene where the Basterds break Stiglietz (sp) out of jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Band Of Brothers: Getting through this series was a real struggle for me. The writing and direction are barely okay (and I'm a HBO fan!). The best thing about the whole series is the how it ends: it's just a few words of a veteran but his delivery is so good that it puts every real actor in that series to shame.

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The preachy opening interviews always put me off.

What can I say, the series contained very little for me to take away from.

Totally agree with both posts. I just skipped the opening interveiws. The problem with B.O.B. is that it semed to give very little-if none at all-credit to any other nation fighting in WWII. This atutude is o.k. if it's a John Wayne movie, but not a piece of work that wants to be taken seriously. It really smacks of being "Saving Private Ryan" lite.

ANYway...back to 2001/2010. If Man got the prize for, essentially, being clever, then why did The Starchild destroy all the neuclear devices (in the book, at least?), and why is there the tired old Man-on-the-brink-of-neuclear-destruction sub-plot in 2010? Why would the NTIs let Man live if they posed a threat to The universe?

Also, if the pilots of The Discovery were so good at there jobs, why was there a need for a HAL9000 Logic Computer to do all the "basic" stuff for them, AND WHY, IN 2010, IS CHANDRA AN AMERICAN???!!! Don't wait for the translation; answer me now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The preachy opening interviews always put me off.

What can I say, the series contained very little for me to take away from.

The problem with B.O.B. is that it semed to give very little-if none at all-credit to any other nation fighting in WWII. This atutude is o.k. if it's a John Wayne movie, but not a piece of work that wants to be taken seriously. It really smacks of being "Saving Private Ryan" lite.

Considering that its supposed to focus on the exploits of a single company, I don't think giving an encompassing view of the war was necessary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can I say, the series contained very little for me to take away from.

Totally agree with both posts. I just skipped the opening interveiws. The problem with B.O.B. is that it semed to give very little-if none at all-credit to any other nation fighting in WWII. This atutude is o.k. if it's a John Wayne movie, but not a piece of work that wants to be taken seriously. It really smacks of being "Saving Private Ryan" lite.

In many parts of the US it is still believed that WWII was won by John Wayne and Bruce Willis, with nothing more then their bare hands and 7 helicopter gun ships!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can I say, the series contained very little for me to take away from.

Totally agree with both posts. I just skipped the opening interveiws. The problem with B.O.B. is that it semed to give very little-if none at all-credit to any other nation fighting in WWII. This atutude is o.k. if it's a John Wayne movie, but not a piece of work that wants to be taken seriously. It really smacks of being "Saving Private Ryan" lite.

In many parts of the US it is still believed that WWII was won by John Wayne and Bruce Willis, with nothing more then their bare hands and 7 helicopter gun ships!

I hate how very little-if none at all-credit is given to Chuck Norris. After all, President Truman thought it more humane to nuke Hiroshima instead of sending him in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In many parts of the US it is still believed that WWII was won by John Wayne and Bruce Willis, with nothing more then their bare hands and 7 helicopter gun ships!

Those are the same parts of the country where you can legally divorce your wife but still be cousins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the US WWII would have had an interesting and very different outcome. Stefan would speak German as a first language, assuming he was born at all.

It would make a facinating HBO miniseries.

Life Without Stefan.

Would it be a horror story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without the US WWII would have had an interesting and very different outcome. Stefan would speak German as a first language, assuming he was born at all.

Without the US, would WWII have happened at all? Without America to intervene and help end WWI, the geopolitical landscape of Europe in the 20s and 30s would have been quite different. Though isolation and attrition would still make it hard, Germany and its allies might have won WWI, controlled Europe, and would not have had a reason to give power to Adolf Hitler. It's an interesting hypothetical concept to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow Angels, a David Gordon Green film that I missed last year. I've liked, loved or was infatuated with all of his films to date, and this wasn't any different. Sad film, poetic ending on the last shot when it cuts.

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can I say, the series contained very little for me to take away from.

Totally agree with both posts. I just skipped the opening interveiws. The problem with B.O.B. is that it semed to give very little-if none at all-credit to any other nation fighting in WWII. This atutude is o.k. if it's a John Wayne movie, but not a piece of work that wants to be taken seriously. It really smacks of being "Saving Private Ryan" lite.

In many parts of the US it is still believed that WWII was won by John Wayne and Bruce Willis, with nothing more then their bare hands and 7 helicopter gun ships!

I hate how very little-if none at all-credit is given to Chuck Norris. After all, President Truman thought it more humane to nuke Hiroshima instead of sending him in!

Some people think that he did Hiroshima a favour(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.