Film night

OurJud
Not sure if this section of the forum is intended for topics unrelated to IFs. Most forums have them, but all the threads in here do seem to be IF-related. Please feel free to delete if necessary.

Anyway, this is an idea borrowed from another forum I used to frequent, and is here for people to discuss film in general, and specifically what they are planning to watch on a given night.

I borrowed my sister-in-law's LotR box set over Christmas. I've seen the first two Hobbit films, but never the LotR trilogy. I'm going to given the first of these a go tonight, but I must admit I don't know if I'll make it to the end of it's 47 hour running time.

Cryophile
Nope, off-topic conversation is both perfectly acceptable and encouraged!

I just recently watched Red Cliff, and it was absolutely fantastic.

OurJud
Thanks, Cryophile.

Not heard of Red Cliff - must look it up.

As for LotR - I watched disc 1 (part 1) of the first film and thoroughly enjoyed it. I found it to be infinitely better that the Hobbit films and look forward to the rest of the series.

HegemonKhan
ya, the hobbit series is just too long for movies, and its the same stuff over and over. LotR didn't really impress me either, but it was a better series (slightly). Tolkien (the actual book series) has better quality, but the movies probably couldn't cover it anyways, even if you had an intelligent producer who actually understands the content of Tolkien.

I just saw 3rd/3 of the Hobitt series, the new (last) one out, and exodus... both completely disappointing. Going to see unbroken at some point soon.

Only good movie I've seen this year (and for many years actually), was Divergent.

Movies became trash for me after ~2001 (the author~writer strike that happened), and anime is far better visual literature (massively so much more advanced~sophisticated~grown up~intelligent~thought-provoking story+plot~themes~etc) than any trash from the US ~ Hollywood. 'Once you go Japanese anime+manga, you never go back to US~Hollywood trash'. Golden Years were the 80s and 90s, all we got now is garbage from 2000+ in movies (with just a few few few exceptions).

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:Golden Years were the 80s and 90s [...]

60s and 70s for me. Massive British horror fan of films from Amicus, Hammer, Tigon, etc. At the moment I've got a real thing for 60s Brit comedies in the Ealing mould - especially if they feature Sid James - The Big Job, Too Many Crooks, Double Bunk, What a Carve Up, etc

Marzipan
OurJud wrote:I've seen the first two Hobbit films, but never the LotR trilogy.


:shock:

That's like saying you've seen the Star Wars prequels but never the originals...

HegemonKhan
I just can't do black and white (except for Sin City 1, lol) ... all the shows are, is dialogue, and an alien dialogue from a generation long gone, especially compared to modern society too (it's really amazing how quickly ACTUAL CULTURE can totally be the opposite within 10 years... and now it might be 5 years: at some point we're going to socially~culturally change in such a short amount of time, heck maybe we're already at 1 year intervals as opposed to the 10 year~decades intervals of the past or to 5 years, due to communication and entertainment technology, that we can't humanly keep up and I'm fascinated at what devastation will occur because of it, hehe).

Silver
The best thing I watched for plot/writing of late is Breaking Bad.

jaynabonne
The most recent film we watched was "In Your Eyes", which turned out to written by Joss Whedon. I enjoyed it quite a bit. And we're considering queuing up the Hobbit trilogy as well, but we haven't yet.

If you're looking for something different (and a bit emotionally wringing, at least it was for me), check out "Never Let Me Go" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1334260/) if you can still find it.

The best thing I watched for plot/writing of late is Breaking Bad.


I can echo that!

and anime is far better visual literature


I've been meaning to see if I can find "My Neighbor Totoro" somewhere to watch it again. It's been a while. :)

davidw
I saw Birdman yesterday. Very good film and highly recommended. I could never quite work out if Michael Keaton's character really had super powers or if it was all in his mind (though I'm guessing the latter). Before that, I saw Exodus which was kind of okay if you overlook the fact that Moses is being played by an English guy when clearly he wasn't English. In fact, most of the big names in the film are being played by people who are the wrong race, but then I guess it wouldn't be a proper Hollywood movie if the roles went to more ethnically appropriate actors.

I saw the third part of the Hobbit trilogy recently and came away unimpressed. I liked LoTR and felt it worked well as three movies, but then LoTR is a huge book anyway. The Hobbit isn't. Stretching a small book into three long movies just left a lot of padding, which the director seems to have decided to fill with characters who weren't even in the Hobbit (hello Legolas, Saruman and Galadriel). Lots of really overlong battle scenes didn't help and the over the top fights were just cringe-worthy. Seriously, did Legolas really jump off the side of a 60 foot tower, break his fall by stabbing his sword into the head of a troll, then use said sword to steer said troll into said tower and topple it over a ravine, thus making a pretty effective bridge? I'm sure he can't have done because that would have been goddamn ridiculous, but that's what I saw.

Personally I'd have sooner had a single film which stuck more to Tolkien's book and left the CGI fight scenes for other films.

Cryophile
jaynabonne wrote:
I've been meaning to see if I can find "My Neighbor Totoro" somewhere to watch it again. It's been a while. :)


Should be very easy to find. Miyazaki classics are always re-released.



The Hobbit was decent, but one needs to consider the source material. The Hobbit is a single novel containing 95,356 words, largest composed of song and anecdotal stories, and was adapted into three films with a total running time of 474 minutes. Albeit, some material was gleaned from The Silmarillion as well.

On the other hand, LOTR is a trilogy containing 481,103 words, and was condensed into three films with a total running time of 558 minutes for the theatrical release, 726 for the final extended version.

I personally enjoyed The Hobbit because I have enjoyed all the source material, but it is very strained and drawn out. It would have been more suitable as a duology, I believe.



Now, the film I mentioned, Red Cliff, is a John Woo-directed Chinese epic historical war film taking place at the end of the Han Dynasty just before the rise of the Three Kingdoms. This is essentially the same time period of the video game series Dynasty Warriors, so the setting and characters will be familiar if you've ever played any of those. Total running time of nearly 5 hours, and had some of the most amazing war and strategy sequences I've ever seen. If you're into asian cinema, epic large-scale war, pre-AD military strategy, or martial arts - this is for you!

OurJud
Marzipan wrote:

"OurJud"

I've seen the first two Hobbit films, but never the LotR trilogy.



:shock:

That's like saying you've seen the Star Wars prequels but never the originals...


I know :)

Not sure why it happened like that, except to say I never felt as though I'd enjoy the LotR films because of their scale. I know that sounds daft, but I expected to find them overwhelming. And then the Hobbit films came along and they looked much lighter, so I gave them a go. Now that I've seen part 1 of the first LotR film, I can only say again that The Hobbit isn't a patch on the LotR films.

HegemonKhan wrote:I just can't do black and white (except for Sin City 1, lol) ... all the shows are, is dialogue, and an alien dialogue from a generation long gone [...]

And that's precisely the reason I love them so much. What is there to cherish or celebrate about modern society??

Marzipan
davidw wrote:I saw the third part of the Hobbit trilogy recently and came away unimpressed. I liked LoTR and felt it worked well as three movies, but then LoTR is a huge book anyway. The Hobbit isn't. Stretching a small book into three long movies just left a lot of padding, which the director seems to have decided to fill with characters who weren't even in the Hobbit (hello Legolas, Saruman and Galadriel). Lots of really overlong battle scenes didn't help and the over the top fights were just cringe-worthy. Seriously, did Legolas really jump off the side of a 60 foot tower, break his fall by stabbing his sword into the head of a troll, then use said sword to steer said troll into said tower and topple it over a ravine, thus making a pretty effective bridge? I'm sure he can't have done because that would have been goddamn ridiculous, but that's what I saw.


I really can't express how disappointed I am in The Hobbit movies. I got a bad feeling when I realized they'd be stretching a single not-especially-long book into a trilogy, but I didn't realize at the time just how bad it would get. I wouldn't have minded some padding--Gandalf and co. taking down the Necromancer happens 'off screen' in the book but it did make sense to include it here, and it made sense to flesh out the guy that actually takes down Smaug--but then they went and inexplicably tossed out major parts of the source material too. Making revisions to pare down LOTRs was one thing when they had so much content they had to cram into just three movies, but if there's not enough to the story of The Hobbit, for heaven's sake don't cut perfectly usable parts out and then replace them with what amounts to badly written fanfic.

Oh, and I wonder if they're going to make another movie now to explain how Legolas lost all his superpowers somewhere there in between Five Armies and The Fellowship. :roll:

OurJud
It's not just the films that were bad, the SFX in The Hobbit were not even a shadow of those in LotR... and we're taking about a decade of technological advances between the two. In fact the only SFX that impressed me from TH, were when the Orcs (or whatever they were) were chasing Tim and his friends down the river.

HegemonKhan
the hobbit series was just to make more wealth upon 'political name recognition' ... it doesn't matter if the movies will be utter trash, tons of people will see it for the 'political name recognition' (and 'finishment' ~ I already seen the others, I might as well see all of them, finishing the movies up), and not care that they're disappointed, seeing the full series anyways, like me sighs, and that is the case with most Hollywood movies, as this is the age of such movies of 'political name recognition', aka of sequals. Some movies in a series are good, but they are extremely few...

-----

even a single book, such as the Hobbit, easily has plenty of material for 3 (and even more) movies, but the director just decided very wrongly with what to include, exclude, and exagerrate~focus upon~embellish and~or make-up... The Hobbit could have easily been a good trilogy of movies... but that's where the skill level of a book author vs a movie producer, comes in to play, laughs. The LotR movies could have been FAR FAR FAR better too.

Lastly, we simply got fatigue too... we've seen the LotR movies already, and the Hobbit series was just more of the same, at a far lesser quality level, as again, it didn't matter, as they get movie viewers simply through the 'political name recognition', so it doesn't matter if people are even furious at how bad the movie might be, they've already paid for it... the movie already got your money, so too bad for you, you were the idiot who gave them the money to go see it, knowing that you won't be impressed. It's not the movie producers problem that people are stupid, and take advantage of that stupidity.

if interested in our behaviorism:

(my 'welcome to sociology, the real sociology, the science field of sociology', in my sociology 101 class, wow what an eye-opener it was for me, hehe)

Merchants of Cool ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/ )

Epic quote (forgot the professor's name):

"Teens are like Africa" :D
(except it's not just teens, 13-19, it's also 'tweens', 20-29, and maybe even older too, sighs)

notice, how they don't dare talk about disney... I'm surprised they even had the bravery~stupidity to mention disney among the other corporations (I wouldn't have be surprised if disney sued them into homeless oblivion), hehe :D

(oops, I guess it already happened, they combined the original ~6 vids of ~15-30-45 minutes each, I know they at least totalled 90 minutes, into one vid of only 1 hr long now, editing out a LOT of content, 30 minutes at least, in the process... laughs)

--------

@OurJud:

just noticed you used 'sfx', rather than the new 'cgi' term, hehe. We're old timers, laughs. I remember when the 'fx' movie channel first came out, displaying the new 'sfx' graphics available, laughs. But, now we got amazing CGI (thanks to computers + Fractals).

OurJud
Final part of LotR tonight. Last night I watched both parts of the second film back-to-back (never thought I could sit through a nigh on 4hr film, but I'd enjoyed the first part so much that I couldn't wait to get part 2 loaded.)

The final part is longer still, so depending on my mood, I may do this one over two nights.

I just feel it necessary to say I hate the dwarf! It's the fact that you're supposed to love him because of his grumpiness and cantankerous nature that irritates me. "Oooh, he's such a grump but we love him because his heart's in the right place and he'd risk his life to save his friends... and he's so loyal... and it's funny how he's always grumpy..."

No, he's a short-arsed miserable turd and I'd have tossed him over a cliff very early on if I were part of that team.

..... and breeeath.

Silver
I've no idea why modern writers/directors seem to like to include annoyingly unsympathetic characters. Jar Jar Binks pretty much stopped me watching the Star wars prequels.

davidw
I think it's an attempt at creating a memorable character with some annoying habits, but usually they just come across as annoying full stop.

Marzipan
I remember being a slightly annoyed at the time that Gimli basically got turned into comic relief for the trilogy, but having seen the Hobbit movie since then I can only be grateful that it wasn't far, far worse.

And generally I assume characters like that are shoehorned in to give something for little kids to laugh at, even in a movie that's not aimed at little kids and isn't one you could reasonably expect little kids to want to sit through. 'Obnoxious comic relief' is just something on a standard checklist somewhere for PG-13 blockbusters, probably right next to 'fart jokes'.

OurJud
Well, I managed the whole of the third film in one sitting. Part 1 ended on too much of a cliff-hanger for me not to load up the second disc.

I must say I loved them. I've not read a single line from any of the books - which if nothing else means my enjoyment wasn't hindered by any inconsistencies and errors others may have noticed - I simply enjoyed them for what they were.

They're certainly not films I'd revisit - for a good few years, at least - as they were so epic in scale that I'd not want to have to go through it all again. Having said that, I do feel oddly sad that it's all over and I won't be in their company anymore.

HegemonKhan
unfortunately, I read the books when I was like still in elementary school (before I turned 13), ya, I was a huge bookworm nerd (I've read A LOT when I was young), so while I've seen all the movies, I was never impressed by any of them. Yes, I'm sure most people like the LotR movies better, as they're more epic storyline, and done (somewhat...) well (bearable, anyways, lol), compared to the Hobbit movies.

if you like J.R.R. Tolkien, it's a joke compared to Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series... though you better *LOVE* to read, hehe ;)

(if you're new to Tolkien, aka only watched the movies, you may not be aware of this about tolkien's time of fantasy writing: females had no role, and the the cheesy "no man can kill me" by the wraith king doesn't count as actual female rolls within its world, and the female elf wizard had a very minor role. In, modern fantasy, females get roles now, and that is especially true in the Wheel of Time series, grins).

davidw
I honestly never thought I'd see the day when someone said LoTR was a joke compared to WoT. For all its flaws, and it has many, LoTR is in an entirely different league.

sgreig
WoT was an overly long, badly planned-out, drawn out mess. It has excellent lore, and started off very strong but I got part way through book 6 and I was done. The problem was that Robert Jordan had originally planned for the series to be 6 books, but then for whatever reason (be it publisher interference or his own hubris) he kept stretching it out longer and longer until it ended up being 14 volumes long and he died before he could finish it.

I love the world of WoT, but that book series is just ridonkulous.

davidw
If Robert Jordan had lived longer, the series would have carried on indefinitely. The way things were going at one stage, the story was hardly progressing at all - just hundreds of pages of characters standing around doing nothing and endless descriptions of minor characters who never show up again and who only seem to be introduced in the first place to stretch out an already too long series.

It might sound cruel, but I think the series benefited from RJ's untimely demise because it allowed a better writer to step in and actually finish things off. While I don't think the last 3 books were anyone's idea of a masterpiece, they were a definite improvement on the previous ones. At least we finally got to see the end of things, which we wouldn't have done if RJ had lived longer.

Marzipan
HegemonKhan wrote:
(if you're new to Tolkien, aka only watched the movies, you may not be aware of this about tolkien's time of fantasy writing: females had no role, and the the cheesy "no man can kill me" by the wraith king doesn't count as actual female rolls within its world, and the female elf wizard had a very minor role. In, modern fantasy, females get roles now, and that is especially true in the Wheel of Time series, grins).


Yeah, it's true Tolkien's work didn't focus on many women characters, but then again, dude was a nerdy old bachelor so he may simply have not known how to write women. What little we did get was pretty memorable, though. Eowyn was a bad ass (how does what she did not count as an 'actual female role'?) and Galadriel's role is a crucial one in the overall story too. If there's not too much detail on her, we still got quality over quantity--everything she did do was important. And then again the books and the movies both were focused on a specific handful of characters and the ring quest. The Silmarillion goes more into her background, and when discussing LOTR I think it's always worth remembering that as epic as those books were, they represented just a tiny sliver of all that was actually going on in that world.

It's true a book written today would have put a lot more focus on Arwen, and I did like what they did with her in the movies, but on the other hand...looking at The Hobbit movies again...they could just as easily have screwed it up, so we got very lucky. I'm also genuinely glad the books didn't shoehorn in some awful romantic subplot at the behest of an editor just because it was the expected thing to do regardless of the author's wishes, which is what would have happened today. If Tolkien had no idea how to write women or romance, then it was definitely a good thing he didn't try too hard to include either one, because it would have been the one of the only obviously awkward and out of place things in an otherwise damn near perfect series. (The other awkward thing would of course be all the singing, the man should have realized he wasn't good at writing poetry and left 90% of that out as well... :roll: )

Oh and also, wow, just wow, you really did just say WoT was better than LotR...I'm afraid that means all your opinions are terrible and wrong forever and I can never take anything you say seriously ever again.

Silver
Maybe we need a book thread too.

Marzipan
Sorry! :oops:

Derails are just a thing that seems to happen here.

Okay, back on topic everyone! Let us change the subject now and talk about Guardians of the Galaxy and how much it owned.

Silver
It was a genuine suggestion, not a dig! :lol:

HegemonKhan
(often, now anyways, movies and books~comics go together, in comparing movie vs book~comic or the book~comic is used as reference for the movie or vice versa, so it might not be good to separate into 'movie' and 'book' threads... my two cents on this decision)

totally unimpressed by Guardians of the Galaxy, maybe the actual comics is more interesting (haven't really read any American comics), but the movie was trash.

(if interested, if you haven't seen this movie, I would recommend it, while it's certainly not great nor really good too, but it's easily as good as Guardians of the Galaxy, it's called: Serenity, a movie based upon the sci-fi channel's 'firefly' tv series).

Green Lantern was decent, and much better than Guardians of the Galaxy, to try to find a movie that more closely compares in its setting to Guardians of the Galaxy.

HegemonKhan
I've seen over 800 movies (and most of them in the theater too... that's a lot of money... they got of mine, laughs), and thus this is no-where close to a complete list (it would take way too long), here's just a few of the movies that I thought were good and~or better (+great+epic):

my genres: Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Martial Arts, Fanservice (laughs, I am a guy)
hated genre: comedy

Underworld (1), RE (1+2), Aeon Flux, Butterfly Effect (1, didn't know they made more, I need to see the others, lol), (new) Batman Trilogy, Fracture, Divergent, Hulk (year ~2000), Iron Man (1), Frozen, Matrix (all), 13th Warrior, Jurassic Park (1+2), Home Alone (1), TMNT (original, year 1980s or 1990s), Oblivion, A.I. Artificial Intelligence, Terminator (1+2+Salvation), Mortal Kombat, The Ring (1), League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Bend It Like Beckam, Sin City (1), Kiss of the Dragon, The Protector (Tony Jaa movie, not that lame coast guard movie!), Kickass (1), V for Vendetta, Equilibrium, Jumanji, RED (1), 17 Again, Blade (1+2), Indiana Jones (1+3), Star Wars (all), Back to the Future (all), Annie (old), Goonies, Flight of Dragons, Flight of the Navigator, Batman (1, year ~1989), Neverending Story, Karate Kid (1, the original), Ghost Busters, Rocky (1,4, newest), Donald Duck: Magic lamp, Willow, Shoot Em Up, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, Batteries Not Included (1), Short Circuit 'Johnny Five' (all), Good Morning Vietnam, All Dogs Go to Heaven (1), White Fang (1), Little Shop of Horrors, The Land Before Time (1, the original), Field of Dreams, Kill Bill (all), King Arthur, Good Will Hunting, A Time to Kill, Gladiator, The Nightmare Before Christmas, X-Men (1+2+Wolverine's origins), Braveheart, Independance Day, The Patriot (Mel Gibson, revolutionary war), Sandlot (1), 12 Monkeys, The Transporter (1+2), The Mummy (1+2), Aladdin, Mulan, Sea Biscuit, Last of the Mohicans, Stardust, 28 (Days+Weeks) Later, Patch Adams, The Fugitive, The Crow (1), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, A League of their Own, Spawn, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (1), The Rocketeer, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Army of Darkness, Lemony Snickets: A Series of Unfortunate Events, Judge Dredd (new), Miracle On Ice, The Saint (1997, Val Kilmer), Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (old, the original), Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Kong (new), Robin Hood (disney cartoon movie, 1973), The Wizard (1989), Casino Royale, Die Hard (?#?): Live Free or Die Hard, Shuan of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Drive (2011), How to Train your Dragon (1+2), Dragonheart, 300 (1), Tangled, Sucker Punch, Shallow Hal, Jack the Giant Slayer, Hitman (2007), Minority Report, Taken (1), Silent Hill (1), Stealth, Fast and Furious (?#?): Tokyo Drift, Congo, The Grudge (1), and etc ...

Marzipan
HegemonKhan wrote:
totally unimpressed by Guardians of the Galaxy, maybe the actual comics is more interesting (haven't really read any American comics), but the movie was trash.

Green Lantern was decent, and much better than Guardians of the Galaxy


I was joking about the 'terrible opinions, wrong about everything' thing before, but now...maybe not so much? It's amazing! If superheroes were real you could be Bad Opinion Man!

Green Lantern was dull and mediocre, a far worse sin than simply being bad. Guardians of the Galaxy might have been the freshest thing in the genre to come out of Hollywood in a long long time. I could care less about the comic books, this was more of a sci-fi movie than a superhero one anyway. Between that amazing intro (can't find a good quality video, sorry), the music, Rocket and Groot, the Nova Core people, the pirates, and the universe itself (mining town built into the skull of an ancient celestial being...not interesting?) If you found nothing appealing about it at all I'm...sorry you hate fun, I guess?

OurJud
I'll stick to me Carry On films :D

Marzipan
OurJud wrote:I'll stick to me Carry On films :D


How's your internet? Got a data limit? If not I'll happily give you six bucks to rent it in HD on Amazon right now, so you can join me in sadly shaking my head at Hegemon and contemplating all the ways that boy just ain't right. :P

jdpjdpjdp
Cards on the table: I'm a giant comic book geek. It has not come up previously, but it was only a matter of time...

Despite this, I haven't seen GotG yet. Stop yelling, I'll get to it. It's been a rough year, I'm behind on everything.

Marzipan wrote:Green Lantern was dull and mediocre, a far worse sin than simply being bad.


Totally agree with this assessment. One of those movies where you can just see all the little bad decisions mounting as it goes on. It wasn't as awful as people like to say, but it was a waste of my time watching it.

And HK, for someone who doesn't read American comics, you have a lot of movies based on them on that list of yours. I shall take this opportunity to pimp the greatness of the comics V for Vendetta, Sin City, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and the early Judge Dredd. All legitimate entrants in the "some of the best ever" conversation.

Tangent: promo for "The Gambler" was just on while I was typing. If they ever make another Daredevil movie, how can John Goodman NOT be the Kingpin? Look at him!

Silver
I checked out some Twilight Zone and Tales from the Crypt comics recently, expecting them to be the best thing ever, and they just didn't work at all. I'm the sort of person who should like comics but they were a bit meh. I might persevere because as much as I love reading books I find every new story a chore to get into. I've got loads of Stephen King to get through at the moment. Mainly books of short stories.

Film wise I'm going to watch Live and Let Die today. It's easily the best Bond film with voodoo and witchcraft - if you can overlook the overt racism that goes hand in hand with pretty much every film from that era. I'll be watching it on a projector too although projected onto a wall rather than a screen. I need a room to be built specifically for these purposes, but that'll come later.

HegemonKhan
I've got my own interests~tastes in movies, and what is good literature~movies and what is trash. I'm not most cow-herded people, I'm a real rebel, often being unimpressed by what most people are amused by or enjoy. Most people have the opposite of my opinions on movies~literature, I'm quite used to it. And I'm glad I'm different, I'm a human, not some dumb cow following a herd, eating grass all day, having the brains the size of a quark. I'm a lone wolf!

I'm a tough critic with high standards due to my expertise in literature, along with my unique interests, and rejection of brainless cow herd thought. I embrace being a true rebel, hehe :D

The Green Lantern was trash (I never meant to give the impression that it was good or even decent), but for me, I found it at least the equivalent with the Guardians of the Galaxy, ya, I'm trying to say how unimpressed I was with Guardians of the Galaxy, lol. This is just me, I found absolutely nothing at all redeeming about the movie. Guardians of the Galaxy wasn't funny, it was completely un-original, especially the characters, no plot~story at all, and totally boring for me.

--------

anyways, what are all of you guys-n-gals, favorite movies? (I think it helps us to know each person's favorite movies, giving us a better understanding of that person, and what he likes and doesn't like, helping us have better movie discussions)

worst movies too, I got too many, laughs (most comedies I hate, which is most of Hollywood's movies). Also, as you name your favorites, those will likely be my worst movies, hehe.

------

personally, I think the most interesting movies to mention, are the ones that you thought were great, but went un-noticed unknown by the movie-go'ers. The great but undiscovered movies, that should have been the at the top of the box offices, as blockbusters, but sadly weren't recognized by the people.

-----

upcoming~future (or just released) movies that I am interested in seeing:

Taken 3 (but probably will be trash, like 2 was trash), Jupiter Ascending (this looks epic... but I've been disappointed many times by 'seemingly epic' movies, laughs), Seventh Son (it might be interesting, but not sure, as I haven't looked up what it's about), Kingsman (at first I thought this was lame, but then I saw the newer trailers showing the Martial Arts ~ Fight Choreography, and I'm like, ya, I'm seeing this now, it's not lame anymore, laughs), Insurgent (but I'm so turned off by the new look of the protagonist, that's one UGLY-Fashioned girl! The girl who did Divergent was absolutely perfect and beautiful!), Jurassic World (probably will be trash, but hey its a Jurassic Park movie), Terminator Genisys, Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens,

Comments about future movies:

Chappie... probably going to be a lame ("tolerance") themed, remake of Short Circuit... Johnny Five is awesome... not crappy chappy...

and if I want to know what a world with robots would be like... watch Ghost in the Shell: Stand Along Complex anime series, it's absolutely epic! (oh wait, I already have, lol. GitS:SAC is~was the Matrix on Steroids, before there was the Matrix, hehe).

-------

A movie that I really liked, was Stealth, and it's a movie that few people seemingly have seen. I highly recommend it, as it's really a good movie!

Another movie that went unnoticed, but I found to be really good: A.I. Artificially Intelligence, it's a sci-fi pinnocio story, but it's really sophisticated, going into advanced areas of human existence~purpose~meaning~behaviorism, of the 'pinnocio' theme.

last recommendation of a movie gone un-noticed: Drive, though be warned... it's violent, but I can't comment of why that's so awesome, as it's an epic plot twist spoiler.

OurJud
Marzipan wrote:

"OurJud"

I'll stick to me Carry On films :D



How's your internet? Got a data limit? If not I'll happily give you six bucks to rent it in HD on Amazon right now, so you can join me in sadly shaking my head at Hegemon and contemplating all the ways that boy just ain't right. :P


That's a very kind offer, Marz, but I'm not in to all that Avengers/GotG/ stuff :?

HegemonKhan wrote:anyways, what are all of you guys-n-gals, favorite movies?

I have two that will forever battle it out for top spot; Withnail and I, and Kes

Silver
I like trashy horror like Halloween and thrillers like Duel.

I like arthouse like Gummo and Buffalo 66.

War films I like Full Metal Jacket and Hurt Locker.

I could sit here forever talking about films I like. It's easier to talk about films I don't like. I'm not massively into romantic comedies or action films. First Blood was good but I'll avoid Steven Seagal films like the plague. Joy Ride was pretty good but that's more a horror really.

To pick up on the last post both Withnail and Kes are great movies. I'm a big fan of Ken Loach and Mike Leigh. Haven't seen all their films though. And who's that other director again who does the weird stuff? Um.. oh yeah David Lynch. I like his stuff.

Mulholland Drive is a good film. And The Elephant Man.

OurJud
Silver wrote:I like trashy horror like Halloween and thrillers like Duel.

I like arthouse like Gummo and Buffalo 66.

War films I like Full Metal Jacket and Hurt Locker.

I could sit here forever talking about films I like. It's easier to talk about films I don't like. I'm not massively into romantic comedies or action films. First Blood was good but I'll avoid Steven Seagal films like the plague. Joy Ride was pretty good but that's more a horror really.

To pick up on the last post both Withnail and Kes are great movies. I'm a big fan of Ken Loach and Mike Leigh. Haven't seen all their films though. And who's that other director again who does the weird stuff? Um.. oh yeah David Lynch. I like his stuff.

Mulholland Drive is a good film. And The Elephant Man.


You're a man of many tastes, Silver - and all good :)

Steven Seagal makes me want to stab my eyes with a rusty fork. Ken Loach and Mike Leigh are both Gods, as is Mr Lynch, and The Elephant Man has always been in my top 5 favourite films of all time.

Check out Leigh's Happy Go Lucky, if you haven't already. I don't think it's considered one of his best, but I loved it. Eddie Marsen is sublime in that film.

HegemonKhan wrote:last recommendation of a movie gone un-noticed: Drive, though be warned... it's violent, but I can't comment of why that's so awesome, as it's an epic plot twist spoiler.

Drive was okay, but man alive, Ryan Gosling has proved himself to be the one of the biggest one-trick ponies in the history of cinema.

Silver
Cheers for the recommendation, I'll check it out. I bet you've seen any film I recommend. What about films with Ray Winstone in? You'll have seen Scum no doubt, almost certainly Nil by Mouth but what about The War Zone?

Marzipan
jdpjdpjdp wrote:Cards on the table: I'm a giant comic book geek. It has not come up previously, but it was only a matter of time...

Despite this, I haven't seen GotG yet. Stop yelling, I'll get to it. It's been a rough year, I'm behind on everything.


You really need to make the time somewhere, the whole experience is just ridiculously fun. (Just got the bluray which is why I'm suddenly all excited about it again! :D) When it first came out in theaters I took my dad along, he's not really all that into movies anymore but even he got into it. I can't remember the last time I've seen space opera done so well and there are so many memorable characters and scenes I'm really having to restrain myself here from just slapping down youtube clips all over this post, because they're all so much more rewarding in context.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of superheroes and sci-fi but I just can't do comic books anymore, at least not the really long running runs. At some point they all got so convoluted and were trying so desperately hard to be dark and grim and edgy, the characters bounce back and forth from being either being locked in the status quo and unable to develop to the writers getting all sadistic and taking them apart, then hitting the reset button on the entire universe to start again. :roll: I take a peek at what's going on in the Batman universe now and then and I can't even enjoy it anymore, give me the old animated series from the 90s over that any day... ;)

Speaking of superhero movies though, the ones everyone keeps yelling at me to see are First Class and Days of Future Past. I disliked the third X-Men movie so much I kind of stopped paying attention to the series for awhile. Have you seen those and how good are they?

jdpjdpjdp
Marzipan wrote:Anyway, I'm a big fan of superheroes and sci-fi but I just can't do comic books anymore, at least not the really long running runs. At some point they all got so convoluted and were trying so desperately hard to be dark and grim and edgy, the characters bounce back and forth from being either being locked in the status quo and unable to develop to the writers getting all sadistic and taking them apart, then hitting the reset button on the entire universe to start again. :roll: I take a peek at what's going on in the Batman universe now and then and I can't even enjoy it anymore, give me the old animated series from the 90s over that any day... ;)


As much as I will always love superheroes (the game I'm writing is actually set in Asgard), I'm with you on that. It's been a while since I read any Marvel or DC stuff. Like you said, today it's all mega-events and reboots to give the appearance of change, when it's really just shaking things up, waiting for them to settle, putting it back the way it was, repeat forever. I guess that's what sells today, but I just find it tedious.

Of course, there's a whole world of comics beyond superheroes. I might not have a weekly pull list at the local comic shop anymore, but I find the good stuff.

Speaking of superhero movies though, the ones everyone keeps yelling at me to see are First Class and Days of Future Past. I disliked the third X-Men movie so much I kind of stopped paying attention to the series for awhile. Have you seen those and how good are they?



X-Men 3 never happened. It was a mass hallucination foisted upon us by aliens, or possibly malevolent spirits from a dimension parallel to ours. (Can you tell I grew up on comics? :lol: )

First Class and DoFP are both good. I would disagree with anyone who says they are great. I think because so much time elapsed after X2 without an X-Men movie that was anything above mediocre, people got all over excited and overrated them. But they are both enjoyable and worth watching. I like First Class better of the two, only because I think DoFP was trying too hard to "fix" the franchise instead of just delivering the best possible movie, and it suffered from too many characters syndrome.

HegemonKhan
wait... do we possibly like the same thing for once Marzipan? (lol). Batman: The Animated Series, was the best, I just loved the darkness and grown-up-ness of it, and loved the Joker's image and behavior in it. Batman Beyond was okay, but not good~great. Also, it is the source for the Raz al' Ghoul saga, with him being the devil, using the green lava lazarus volcano pits~pools, to being rejuvinated young over and over again, with batman, his apprentice, as well. I also really loved Clayface in it too. (I also loved the old batmans with adam west, always hated Robin ~ one of the worst sidekicks of all time, lol, as a kid I loved the 'pows' bubbles and still find it endearing even now too).

------

Days of Future Past was trash, once again I got plagued with Patrick Stewart's obsession with a socialite party setting in the 50s-70s (whatever the era), that ruined star trek: the next generation with him too, laughs. The time travel was lame, and everything else was stupid about it too.

First Class was alright, seeing their beginning, and oh did~do I hate Xavier, he's the evil one! Magneto was just awesome, he's a hero, & Xavier the villian

----

we also agree on X-men 3, I absolutely loved the (dark) phoenix saga in the tv show cartoon series, but they totally botched it in the movie.

Silver
60s Batman with Adam West is surely the greatest? Actually I haven't seen the animated series.

Marzipan

X-Men 3 never happened. It was a mass hallucination foisted upon us by aliens, or possibly malevolent spirits from a dimension parallel to ours. (Can you tell I grew up on comics? :lol: )



This has always been my theory, I'm glad I finally found someone who agrees!

First Class and DoFP are both good. I would disagree with anyone who says they are great. I think because so much time elapsed after X2 without an X-Men movie that was anything above mediocre, people got all over excited and overrated them. But they are both enjoyable and worth watching. I like First Class better of the two, only because I think DoFP was trying too hard to "fix" the franchise instead of just delivering the best possible movie, and it suffered from too many characters syndrome.



Welp, I'll hold off on buying them for now, but I'll try to find an excuse to swing by my cousin's house and nab them both. And no worries, 'too many characters syndrome' is a thing I'm fully expecting, the X-Men corner of the Marvel universe is really bloated.

Silver wrote:60s Batman with Adam West is surely the greatest? Actually I haven't seen the animated series.


http://www.youtube.com/embed/A71i0a5x-qA

My parents never had to worry about me getting in trouble after school, I was rushing straight home to see this. :P

If you have Amazon Prime you can stream all four seasons for free. I'm sure it's available elsewhere too if you have a look around.

P.S. Is there any way to embed a video in a post? I've seen it in other places but couldn't figure it out.

davidw
Xmen First Class is pretty good, but Days of Future Past less so, even though DoFP got much better reviews from what I saw. I was never sure about the whole time travel thing and thought the idea that Wolverine went back, changed something and - lo and behold! - all the Xmen who were killed in previous films are back alive again was pretty naff. I guess the writers desperately regretted murdering off so many Xmen in Xmen 3 and wanted to bring them back and this was the best they could come up with. Not a terrible film, but hardly anything to write home about.

Silver
I don't think there's a way to embed videos on here, no.

The entire collection has come out on bluray recently that I'm severly tempted by. Over ÂŁ200 though, which is less tempting lol.

Oh hang on, on checking again it's half that amount and not even released yet. I'll give pre-order a miss though as it was definitely advertised as more so I'm now thinking 'scam'.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Batman-Complete ... B00M8B8XWG

Marzipan
The youtube clip I linked was the intro to the cartoon; Amazon has the 60s version available for streaming too, but not free. Individual episodes are $1.99 a pop (SD) so if you have a few favorites it might be a good option.

The collection you linked looks legit--it's through Amazon itself, not a third party seller--just not released yet. That said, I've never really seen the point of preordering.

e: that same collection is already available on the non-UK version of the site, at a pretty nice discount.

OurJud
Silver wrote:Cheers for the recommendation, I'll check it out. I bet you've seen any film I recommend. What about films with Ray Winstone in? You'll have seen Scum no doubt, almost certainly Nil by Mouth but what about The War Zone?

I've seen Scum, yes, but neither of the other two. I can take or leave Winstone to be honest, but I find the older I get, the less stomach I have for nasty films like NbM. I have no desire to sit through ugly, depressing films like that, no matter how well made.

Another, random recommendation off the top of my head is Into the Wild. For anyone who occasionally gets itchy feet and the desire to trek out into the wilderness with a bed role and harmonica, this film is an absolute must-see. I got goosebumps just watching this trailer. It's rare for a film to jump into my top five on the very first viewing, but this one did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LAuzT_x8Ek

Silver
Ah right, you might want to give The War Zone a miss too then. I sort of lump them in with Leigh/Loach in terms of being gritty and British is all.

OurJud
Silver wrote:Ah right, you might want to give The War Zone a miss too then. I sort of lump them in with Leigh/Loach in terms of being gritty and British is all.

Now, see, I don't agree. Loach and Leigh's films deal with unpleasant stuff, but there's always hope in their films. They're inspirational in a way none of the Loach/Leigh-inspired directors are.

Silver
You haven't seen Sweet Sixteen then? I saw the cinema release and walked out gutted as all the romcom punters were walking out with smiley faces. I quite like that though. I'd rather sit through a film that elicits a negative feeling but a point be made rather than, well, rather than what I tend to get forced to watch by her indoors lol.

OurJud
Silver wrote:You haven't seen Sweet Sixteen then? I saw the cinema release and walked out gutted as all the romcom punters were walking out with smiley faces. I quite like that though. I'd rather sit through a film that elicits a negative feeling but a point be made rather than, well, rather than what I tend to get forced to watch by her indoors lol.


Ha! I honestly intended to single out SS as an exception in my previous post. I've seen bits and bobs, but enough to tell me I don't want to see the whole thing. I think that was KL on a dark day :?

Silver
It's interesting to find out where people's cut-off points are with films. One of the moodiest Ive ever seen is an Aussie film called Bad Boy Bubby. I think every single Aussie I ever asked about it reacted like I'd asked if they'd ever sold drugs to pre-teen kids. I thought it was a great film. The first half is uncomfortable for sure. But the second half is beautiful. It has hope so it has to make it onto your list. :P

OurJud
Silver wrote:... I think every single Aussie I ever asked about it [...]

I'm more interested in why/how you know so many Aussies :shock:

HegemonKhan
if you like the new batman trilogy movies, then you'll need to check out the animated tv series:

batman: the animated series

as this is where it (the new Batman trilogy movies) came from, hehe :D

------

@ Marz:

----

did you see my previous post's content? (this content: see below):

wait... do we possibly like the same thing for once Marzipan? (lol). Batman: The Animated Series, was the best, I just loved the darkness and grown-up-ness of it, and loved the Joker's image and behavior in it. Batman Beyond was okay, but not good~great. Also, it is the source for the Raz al' Ghoul saga, with him being the devil, using the green lava lazarus volcano pits~pools, to being rejuvinated young over and over again, with batman, his apprentice, as well. I also really loved Clayface in it too. (I also loved the old batmans with adam west, always hated Robin ~ one of the worst sidekicks of all time, lol, as a kid I loved the 'pows' bubbles and still find it endearing even now too).

~ All batmans MUST have an uber uncool Robin, THEE worst incarnation of a sidekick of all time from human imagination, I HATE Robin, UGH! Will there ever be a batman where Robin ain't ... awfully horrible... ???

----

I love Batman: the animated series, it was so awesome, and also as a kid, I loved the old adam west batman tv show series with the 'pows', really was and still is endearing even today to me.

Silver
OurJud wrote:

"Silver"

... I think every single Aussie I ever asked about it [...]


I'm more interested in why/how you know so many Aussies :shock:



London is a magnet for them.

OurJud
Silver wrote:

"OurJud"

[quote="Silver"]... I think every single Aussie I ever asked about it [...]


I'm more interested in why/how you know so many Aussies :shock:



London is a magnet for them.[/quote]
When I was walking thru Earl's Court, into a pab I wus luured.
Where a nosey pom sed where you from, as I darned the amber fluid.
I said get it straight, I'm an Aussie mate, an' am fixin' to get plastered,
But the beer is crook and the birds all look like you, you pommy bast....


Anyway, I've never met an Aussie myself.

Silver
You can't have visited Earls Court then. :D

OurJud
Silver wrote:You can't have visited Earls Court then. :D

No, but I have seen this episode of Only Fools and Horses a few times :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBck0umNY34

Oh, I see. Your reply was in references to me having never met an Aussie, not the accusation that southern beer is crook and the women all look like blokes? :D

Silver
Heh :D

OurJud
What with my love for Peter Cushing, I decided to give his Dr Who and the Daleks a go the other night. It was one of the worst films I've ever seen. So bad, in fact, I didn't even make it to the end.

Going to try the Stephen King adaptation The Mist later tonight.

Silver
I just read The Mist, like, over Christmas -- so let me know what the film version is like. Film adaptions of King's stuff is a bit hit and miss. I thought Misery was pretty good. The Shawshank Redemption is more cheesy than the book as was the Langoliers although that nailed his character descriptions from the book. I haven't read The Shining but apparently that is way superior to Kubrick's adaptation.

OurJud
Film / book comparisons are a weird thing in my, erm... book, and I've never really understood how or why people try to look at the two mediums in the same way. To me, both mediums are either good or bad in their own right. Take Minority Report, for instance. Philip K Dick fans hate that film because it's so far removed from his short story, but I don't understand that thinking. Hate a film because its bad, sure, but why would you hate a good film just because it doesn't remain faithful to the source?

I absolutely love The Shining, and even though I haven't read the book, that wouldn't change even if I was to do so.

Anyway, I shall report back with The Mist

Silver
Fair point. Art should be judged on its own merits. There are a lot of terrible horror films though. Which is part of the attraction too I suppose. Halloween has some major consistency issues (it turns from day to night during the same short car journey, being one example) but it's still my favourite horror flick. Probably owing to the fact it's the one that scared me the most when I was a kid.

OurJud
Silver wrote:There are a lot of terrible horror films though.

Aren't there just?

I like a few US horror films - especially from the 80s (including Halloween) - but my true love is for the British horrors of the 70s, with a particular soft spot for the Amicus anthology films.

The Mist is still running as I type this, but I'm finding it all rather irritating. I hate the fact that I've become so cynical in later life. If a film is irritating me, as this one is, I find myself wishing bad on all the characters you're supposed to love. This one features the copper's wife from The Walking Dead who spent every episode with teary, glazed eyes. In this, she's spent every second of her screen time with teary, glazed eyes. It also features the annoying old guy from The Walking Dead, who in this plays an annoying old guy.

Additional: Fantastic bloody ending, though!

Silver
What's the ending? (or do you mean Walking Dead? In the book of The Mist the ending was.... *no spoilers until I know you got there*)

I like the old Hammer House of Horror series off the TV. I wanted to get Murder, Mystery and Suspense too but I've never ever seen that anywhere ever again in terms of availability.

OurJud
Silver wrote:What's the ending? (or do you mean Walking Dead? In the book of The Mist the ending was.... *no spoilers until I know you got there*)

I like the old Hammer House of Horror series off the TV. I wanted to get Murder, Mystery and Suspense too but I've never ever seen that anywhere ever again in terms of availability.

The ending to The Mist, I mean.

And yeah, rather strange one regarding HHoMaS. It appears to have been given an unusually short print run (if that's the expression for a dvd release) and consequently sells for stupid money.

OurJud
Just finished watching The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night and can't decide if it's a work of genius or completely off its trolley.

Silver
Magical Mystery Tour was off its trolley.

Silver
The ending of the book of The Mist is that there isn't an ending. It ends unresolved.

OurJud
Silver wrote:The ending of the book of The Mist is that there isn't an ending. It ends unresolved.

Oh, right, well the film does. I could tell you it if you have no plans to watch it.

Silver
Yeah go for it. :D

OurJud
Silver wrote:Yeah go for it. :D

Okay, so five of the main characters (the dad (and his son), the teacher, the old woman and the old man) eventually decide to make a bid for freedom. They all reach the dad's SUV and slowly begin driving blindly through the mist. They stop when they hear this huge alien thing coming along, and watch as this towering monster lumbers by their car.

Realising that all hope is lost, the dad pulls out a pistol and what remains of the ammo. He counts four bullets (remember there's five of them). When asked how the problem will be resolved, he just says, "I'll think of something." We then switch to a car exterior view and four shots ring out. Back into the car and the guy is in hysterics (naturally), wailing and punching the car's interior, repeatedly firing the empty gun into his mouth even though he knows it's empty... in other words he's in a right mess.

He eventually composes himself enough, and climbs out of the car to face the alien, begging for it to come and take him and end his torment. We hear rumbling and....


... the whole of the US army emerge from the fog, transporting survivors to safety and flame-throwering what's left of the alien nests hanging in trees. The camera pans up to reveal the long line of military vehicles and the mist gradually dissipating.

A cruel, but very effective ending to an otherwise very mediocre film :D

Silver
It ends at the same time too. You get the big alien four (or six?) legged thing go past the car and then it's just the fact that he's writing a letter for whoever finds it saying he'd like to say there was a happy ending but he sees no end to it. So they literally just bolted that last bit on. I think the film's resolution is better. Well, the book didn't have one.

OurJud
Silver wrote:It ends at the same time too. You get the big alien four (or six?) legged thing go past the car and then it's just the fact that he's writing a letter for whoever finds it saying he'd like to say there was a happy ending but he sees no end to it. So they literally just bolted that last bit on. I think the film's resolution is better. Well, the book didn't have one.

You reckon Mr King was kicking himself when he watched the film? :D

Anyway, here it is if you want to see it in all its glory. It's even more effective because of the music they've used - very haunting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY1ULaOciIc

Silver
They do entire films on youtube? lol

OurJud
Silver wrote:They do entire films on youtube? lol

Oh, yeah... not always strictly legal in terms of copyright, and many get taken down fairly quickly. Your best bet (ironically) is with the old obscure stuff where no one's really sure where the copyright/ownership lies.

jdpjdpjdp
OurJud wrote:You reckon Mr King was kicking himself when he watched the film? :D


Actually, IIRC, King did say in an interview that he thought the film ending was better than his, and wished he'd thought of it.

Silver
I suppose in his mind leaving it unresolved left the reader with unresolved horror. It is somewhat dissatisfying though and the twist in the film version definitely completed it.

King is notoriously bad at being able to end stories though.

OurJud
jdpjdpjdp wrote:

"OurJud"

You reckon Mr King was kicking himself when he watched the film? :D



Actually, IIRC, King did say in an interview that he thought the film ending was better than his, and wished he'd thought of it.


Ha! I was only kidding :shock:

Silver wrote:King is notoriously bad at being able to end stories though.

Coincidentally, I'm notoriously bad at being able to begin, maintain and end stories.

Actually, that's a lie. I'm not notorious in the slightest.

Silver
just copy King's ending of The Mist for the ending of your game lol :P

OurJud
Girl With Green Eyes - great kitchen sink-esque film from 1964. Rita Tushingham is very good, as is Peter Finch. There's defiantly something very special about the opening titles to Woodfall films - can't quite put my finger on it.


OurJud
Smashing Time - another Lynn Redgrave and Rita Tushingham pairing (following on from yesterday's Girl with Green Eyes) about two best friends who move to London to sample the swinging scene.

A very bizarre, musical comedy satirizing the decade, but the two leads put in very engaging performances.


OurJud
Bronco Bullfrog - a rather bleak film from 1969 about a disillusioned teenager called Del, and his small band of friends who spend their time on the rob, fighting, and chasing girls.

The film uses non-actors and is built around a thin storyline concerning Del's running away to the coast with his new girlfriend, and the troubles and difficulties that meet them.

Not much to recommend it really, but the performances - if more than a little awkward - have a quirky charm.


HegemonKhan
the girl on the left is beautiful ;)

interesting title... a bronco (horse), a bull, and a frog, laughs :D
(I know a 'bullfrog' is just a frog, not a 'bull' and a 'frog', but my point~joke~silliness is~was to show it has "3" animals for its title)

I also like the design of the shutter-like~fractured portraits (how it gives the illusion of this, due to: the black line space between them and the lowered height of the right-sided ones), too :D

OurJud
I absolutely love 50s/60s/70s graphic design! I think the Bronco Bullfrog poster is only retro in truth, but they've done a good job of capturing the style from back then.

HegemonKhan
I can only watch~stand 'Matlock' in black and white (and those tv films based on books: To Kill A Mockingjay~bird, not sure if there's more of them, lol ... stupid bad memory of mine, lol).

My childhood was the Golden Years of american film (tv+movie) content: the 80s and 90s, hehe :D

as you know from my political orientation, I have no interest in the 70s 'hippee' content... and the 60s and 50s is just too far back, too alien for me, even if I could stand watching in black and white, which for the most part, I can't.

I did like the 'Twilight Zone' tv series though and also that.. 'The Munsters' tv series... too.

OurJud
Film was never better than in the 60s and 70s. It's a bit like music, in that they 'just don't make 'em like that anymore'.

OurJud
A Place to Go

Charmless tale about a pub singer who gets himself roped into a big job to try and escape his squalid lifestyle. Gangster's moll Rita Tushingham plays the love interest.


Silver
OurJud wrote:

"Silver"

They do entire films on youtube? lol


Oh, yeah... not always strictly legal in terms of copyright, and many get taken down fairly quickly. Your best bet (ironically) is with the old obscure stuff where no one's really sure where the copyright/ownership lies.



That was just the ending; I thought you meant it was the entire film. Looked like it was prob straight to DVD.

OurJud
Huh? I'm confused.

I didn't think you were asking me directly, if they did entire films on youtube (despite the question mark). The 'lol' suggested you were stating your surprise at the fact they did entire films.

HegemonKhan
it depends on the country~language of origin that the movie on youtube is within~from (law~court enforcement or lack of international copyright laws+ability to enforce altogether) ... if whether a full movie can survive... on youtube or not

lots of full movies in (Mexico) spanish or german~italian or asian, but never in english... ARGH !!!!

Silver
OurJud wrote:Huh? I'm confused.

I didn't think you were asking me directly, if they did entire films on youtube (despite the question mark). The 'lol' suggested you were stating your surprise at the fact they did entire films.


Because you said 'here it is if you want to see it in all its glory' which I took to mean - the entire film, rather than the ending of the film in all its glory.

OurJud
Silver wrote:

"OurJud"

Huh? I'm confused.

I didn't think you were asking me directly, if they did entire films on youtube (despite the question mark). The 'lol' suggested you were stating your surprise at the fact they did entire films.



Because you said 'here it is if you want to see it in all its glory' which I took to mean - the entire film, rather than the ending of the film in all its glory.


Ah. Now I understand.... I think.

OurJud
Zombieland.

Can't believe I've waited so long to watch this. Brilliant film!

HegemonKhan
upcoming movies I'm interested in seeing:

Jupiter Ascending (it could be epic, but will it be even good, let alone, epic?... sighs) and Seventh Son (seen trailers, yep I'm interested... but will it be good?... sighs) and Kingsman (yep I'm interested, Martial Arts, hehe, but will it be a good movie?... sighs)

might-see movies:

Taken 3: Taken 1 was good, but Taken 2 was trash, so I'm assuming I'll be disappointed with Taken 3, but I might see it anyways ... maybe it'll be at least decent, and possibly good... and if I got time and I'm bored...

Into the Woods: if I got the time to see it and I'm bored...

Big Hero 6: see 'Into the Woods' above, it looks like it'll be decent for a disney~pixar film (I don't like them, I really miss the now 'old school' disney animations, like Aladdin and Lion King and etc, sighs) + Japan-Anime-like film

the only new disney films that I liked:

Tangled and Frozen

HegemonKhan
saw Jupiter Ascending: trash (sighs, another utterly disappointing movie, not surprised, it's a common occurance for me).

Chappie might be a bit better than I thought (from trash to decent), if it goes more into the robot also being a warrior robot, compared to just a lame 'tolerance' themed movie. Short Circuit will always rule for me.

-------------------

Edit:

saw Seventh Son, trash too, and again not surprised.

Hopefully, Kingsman will be at least decent, sighs.

Marzipan
OurJud wrote:Zombieland.

Can't believe I've waited so long to watch this. Brilliant film!


It really is. My cousins and I have started a bit of a tradition watching it along with Shaun of the Dead every Halloween for the last few years. :lol:

Silver
Halloween I should be traditional for Halloween. Or Trick or Treat. You need to be a metal fan from the 80s to appreciate the latter though.

HegemonKhan
Kingsman as trash too (decent fight choreography, especially with the 'blade runner' girl, but that's it).

We'll see if Chappie and Insurgent are decent~good, for my next movies.

-------

Shaun of the Dead was a good zombie movie, along with Dawn of the Dead, actually they're both quite (pseudo)-similar to each other.

But really, out of all the zombie movies out there, I really liked the '28 Days+Weeks Later' movies the best.

Resident Evil (some of them anyways) are good movies, but they really aren't what I would call as '(true) zombie' movies (more genetic~super human-mutant than a pure-true zombie movie).

------

What do you guys and gals consider as the best zombie movies? (I'm interested, as my mind is having trouble recalling all of the zombie movies, as maybe there's some good ones that I'm not remembering about)

-----

As for what is a good Halloween movie... hmm...

That's a hard one... I'll have to think~research up the movies out there... hmm...

I really liked 'The Crow (1)', and it even references the origin of the U.S.' Halloween holiday (and of our forced gov. education too), but it's really got nothing to do with halloween's theme.

The Nightmare Before Christmas isn't bad, but it too really isn't the essense of Halloween's theme.

sighs... this is a hard one.. trying to think of a movie that really captures Halloween...

Spawn is good, but it really isn't tied to Halloween, even though it does have some of Halloween's themes.

Freddy Kruger character captures the Halloween themes, but as movies, they're just serial killer ~ slaughter, b movies, not Halloween movies...

Pet Cemetary might work somewhat (I haven't watched it in a long time).

chuckles... now every guy on Halloween should watch the Elvira: Mistress of Darkness (or whatever it is called) movie, laughs, winks.

Silver
I've been having a re-watch of Event Horizon as part of scifi research. The script/acting is a bit cheesier than I remember. The effects haven't aged at all though really.

HegemonKhan
I know I've seen that movie, but otherwise I don't remember anything about it at all, lol.

HK Edit: had to look it up... ah it's the one where they go insane and the possession of the ship by an evil entity from the other dimension... yep, lame, no wonder I forgot everything about it, laughs.

P.S.

amusing how anti-christian hollywood actually believes in christianity, it's just within a black hole, where physics break down. So, while denying that heaven~hell God~devil exists in our universe, they do believe of it existing outside of our universe, inside of a singularity, another dimension, lol. What cuckoo dodo birds... HK shakes his head.

Silver
Evil as a descriptor doesn't need religion to remain a descriptor. It has shared non-religious synonyms. Although religion gives it its value, its inclusion in common language disregards whether those using it are religious or not.

HegemonKhan
well, it is about possession of the ship and~or of the people going insane~mad, and thus that is religious (demons~devil~evil spirits): possessing people (exorcism=religious), causing them to be insane~mad and~or murderous. if it was just evil involved then you're right. but the movie is about evil+posession+insanity~madness, which is religious, christianity... not sure about other religions though...

for example, I know that the origin of our 'zombie' concept is from Islam:

zombie <-> ghoul <-> islam

(Islam's 'ghoul' have nothing to do with zombie, but that is how we got the 'zombie', even though our 'zombie' concept, is completely different than Islam's 'ghoul' concept)

but I don't know enough about other religions (Islam, Judaiasm, Asian religions), as to whether they have possession, only know that christianity does.

Silver
I can't argue against that really. A lot of people talk about The Matrix being the ultimate of using religious narratives within a modern movie. I guess conspiracy theorists have their cut of the pie too. I'm neither, so I don't see that. *shrug*

I was just looking at spaceship mechanisms/descriptions in modern fiction and it was one port of call.

HegemonKhan
The Matrix has religious themes... HUH ??!! ... I'll have to think about that... never encountered this idea... will have to examine it... right now: I don't see any... of what I can remember of the Matrix... lol (it's been quite a while). Lots of Philosophy and extremely advanced science~computer concepts though... but religious... hmm... (again, I don't see any right now).

---------

P.S.

if you like sci-fi, some TV shows that I love:

the Sci-fi (now SyFy, so lame... grrr) channel:

(finally, they're making some decent shows now, instead of in the past, which was all trashy b-films, for the most part. I miss the now very old and unknown 'Earth 2' show, but this might have been a different channel's show, can't remember and too lazt to look up at the moment)

1. Helix (2nd season is currently airing, 1st season was really good, but short, sighs)

2. 12 Monkeys (really good, but pretty simple stuff such as the time travel stuff and the plot, so far)

3. Defiant (enjoyable show)

Silver
It totally passed me by too. But an ex Christian gf went on about it and then a google search revealed she wasn't alone in her delusions. Even the BBC mentioned it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3027027.stm

12 Monkeys is an ok movie, but I'm doing space scifi research specifically. I haven't watched the others.

HegemonKhan
specifically just space setting (spaceship only or space universe: spaceship+worlds), or space concepts, such as time travel?

--------

err... I meant the sci-fi 's new tv series '12 Monkeys'

the old actual 12 Monkeys movie, now that was epic, due to the plot twist, I miss this movie... I need to re-watch it... but unforunately, now a lot of my younger year movies are no longer shown on tv anymore... sighs, as they're picking up more years, and thus no longer replayed on the tv channels. (and also I guess the PPV got the rights to them, so to watch them, I'd have to subscribe to the PPV, but there is always the internet :wink: , well... hopefully... net neutrality passed, and also Obama+liberals wants to give up control of internet to the world... why would you ever want to give up control~power if you got it ??? ... that makes no rational sense what-so-ever, lol)

---------

There's always...

Guardians of the Galaxy too for research or Star Trek (new: 1+2) or Jupiter Ascending (trash though) or etc...

but personally I thought it (GotG) was trash, whereas...

... if interested, I really liked this (I think it's WAY WAY WAY better than GotG):

Serenity (it's a movie, based upon the Sci-Fi Channel's 'Fire Fly' series): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/
(actually, GotG is a poor attempt to plagerize Serenity... seriously, GotG stole Serenity in its entirety, the similiarities aren't coicidence, they're nearly the same movies... except Serenity is good, and GotG is lame+trash)

now, if you can do any sci-fi (non-space setting), then I'd recommend:

Butterfly Effect or Aeon Flux (this was a really awesome movie, though it doesn't have so much as sci-fi themes, as sociological, biological, and politcal)

And of course you got:

Ender movie (trash, sadly, as the book series is epic), Dune (not the lame old movie ~ which had nothing to do with actual Dune lol, but the tv film series), (too bad there's no Foundation movie... if they could do these well... they'd be epic... lol)

Silver
RE: your first point (and probably including some after), note: I'm not in the US and seldom watch TV. Films are good suggestions and books too. Or I suppose TV where I can get hold of series box sets etc.

Silver
But saying "Twelve Monkeys" won't make me think of any kind of TV series for the above reasons.

HegemonKhan
ya, the America vs Europe is annoying, not sure what plays there vs here, and a lot fo the stuff you guys talk about, I've no idea, as we (may) not get them in the US (maybe we do, and I just don't watch them), laughs. I don't understand this 'Doctor Who'... laughs... (I'm sure it plays here, but I don't understand why it is liked by a lot of people... of what little I've seen of it, I wasn't impressed, lol)

I guess then that the sci-fi (SyFy) channel isn't across the ocean (europe)? So, it's probably just national (US) and not international (Europe+etc countries).

Silver
The best TV we get is coming out of the US at the moment. But we hear about it before it gets here so we buy it on DVD or whatever. Breaking Bad was amazing. UK TV stuff is generally a bit poor.

HegemonKhan
actually, you guys and gals in europe usually get to see our movies before we do... they always release US movies in europe before they do in the US... since hollywood liberals+liberals love europe so much and hate the US, we should jsut deport hollywood+liberals over to europe ;)

Silver
The thing with the word 'liberals', is that it means different things to different people.To you it probably means left-of-centre or perhaps even centrist in US politics. To others it means 'hippy', like socially liberal. To me it just means everyone who supports free-market capitalism. Neo-liberals, worshippers of Hayek.

HegemonKhan
ya, US and UK political terms+parties are very different, obviously. In the US, we've got only one type of 'liberal' (not to be confused with libertarians):

as far left on the political spectrum as possible: fascists, literally there's no different between terrorists and liberals (US and UK: you've got the same as we do, when it comes to liberals), and that's why liberals like terrorists so much, same insane~mad minds, the NAZIS. Finally Europe got some sense finally smacked into their heads (thanks to the terrorists attack on that newspaper~political cartoonists, charlie le do, whatever ~ I don't know french, lol). I'm sure the US won't have sense until another 9-11 smacks our NAZI populace+gov heads, but I don't even know if that'll work even, sighs. Heck, Iran will nuke us, and still the NAZIS of our populace+gov will love them, sighs.

The US political spectrum:

NAZIS
(liberals)
(democrats)
|
|-------------------------|-------------------------|
..............................................|
......................................... republicans
......................................... conservatives

Silver
Anarchism is the far left of the political spectrum: libertarian communism. Fascism lives over on the right. It's the boss class armed with razor blades.

HegemonKhan
that's actually not correct, fascism is on both (left and right) extremes. Both extremes are total gov control.

anarchy... would be a side branch (making the spectrum 2D: a '+' shape), or if you want to keep it 1D (a line), then it'd look like this:

fascism ------ anarchy ---------------- middle -------------------------- fascism

.
.
.
.
.
here's a much better model for the political spectrum:

(forgive me trying to draw it 2D, poorly: x and y axis, lol)
.
.
.
.
........................................................... anarchy (total chaos)
.................................................................../
................................................................./
fascism (despotism) ----------------- middle -------------------- facism (despotism) ::::::::: level of power control axis
............................................................../
............................................................/
............................................... democracy (total chaos)
........................................................ ||
............................................... level of chaos axis

thus we got a plane (square), where we could put our points

(I'll let someone else figure out what we'd call the 4 corners: left_fascism+arachy, right_fascism+anarchy, left_fascism+democracy, and right_fascism+democracy, I'm not a poltical science docterate, lol)

..
.
.
.
.
heck, if you want even a better model, than make it 3D (x, y, z axis), with theocracy~religious at one extreme and atheism~secularism at the other extreme

X axis: power level
Y axis: order level
Z axis: faith level

atheism is a religion, they are the same thing, believing in no god is the same as believing in a (or many) god(s),
just as anarchy and democracy are the same thing too, if everyone is in control (democracy), then no one is in control (anarchy), and if no one is in control (anarchy), then everyone is in control (democracy)

Silver
It's this:


HegemonKhan
nope, that model isn't accurate, thus it's not correct.

it looks nice, but it's still completely wrong, regardless of it looking nice.

your model is of just the poltiical~social~economic concepts, not the actual poltical spectrum.

------

chuckles... just had an interesting idea...

that model of yours... that could literally be the 'singularity', thee central point, of the poltical spectrum, laughs. it defies the physics of human behaviorism!

Silver
The only thing I can see wrong with it is that it thinks liberalism isn't authoritarian. What do you see wrong with it?

HegemonKhan
reality, it just incorrect, that simple. how to give examples of something so simple... hmm... in actual practice (reality, not academic fantasy brainLESS-storming) there's nothing of socialism about "socialism", it's fascism (take by force your right of property). Again, your model is just a poltical terminology concept model merely for the conception of those terms

or... see my previous post (I had a really nifty idea about your model, that I just edited in, lol).

Silver
You're talking about something specific. If you're talking about the Soviet Union, I know they liked to call themselves socialist, I know the west liked to call them socialist, but they were actually authoritarian state capitalist.

Communism can be defined by the means of production being held in common. And apart from small examples such as the Spanish revolution or the French commune it has never existed. Or not in modern times involving an entire nation.

Fascism is harder to define. But being a despot doesn't make someone a fascist. It makes them a despot.

HegemonKhan
fascism = police state = despotism (I hate the word 'totalitarianism', as first off, it's too long lol, it's despotism=dictator! I'm old, so I'm old fashioned, 'totalitarianism' just makes no sense as a term~word for me, and also I'm a huge lover of Civilization game from Civ1 to Civ4, so it's DESPOTISM, hehe)

the closest thing in reality to the concept of socialism, IS CAPITOLISM, lol. socialism doesn't exist, as private property is an absolute.

if there's no private property, then males can rape females with full lawfulness, she doesn't own her body, anyone can do whatever they want with it, as it belongs to everyone! And murder is fully legal for same reason, and etc etc etc. there's no such thing as socialism. I can walk into brad pit and angela jolie's estate and take one of their 7 ferrari cars, as theft is fully legal, as no one owns anything, it belongs to all of us. I can walk into anyone's home and take anything I want from them. etc etc etc examples. your model is just inaccurate, it's incorrect, plain and simple. michelle obama is everyone's wife, anyone can have her, as again, no private property, obama doesn't own michelle obama, and michelle obama doesn't own her own body, it's everyone's body. we can all have michelle obama. Since NAZIS want socialism so badly, we should give it to them!, Lettng us take everything from them, as private property is no more. I can take anyone's babies, as they belong to all of us, their parents don't own their own babies, we can steal them all we want as it is fully lawful under socialism, as there's no private property.

Silver
Fascism is the marriage between the corporation and the state. It can be a police state. It usually involves there being a despot at the levers of power, yes. But there's also despots who aren't fascists. Therefore the words aren't synonymous.

HegemonKhan
Chappie movie: trash, I thought it would be better, but it didn't go into the robot being a war robot as the longer trailer made it seem like, another disappointment, sighs. The ending though was cool, I liked the ending, as they actually showed 'it' working, instead of it failing. Though, with my knowledge of programming now (and my knowledge of physics + bio-physics), very very unrealistic... laughs.

OurJud
Recently got around to watching all of the Hobbit and LotR films for the first time, and absolutely loved them, particularly the LotR.

Never read the Tolkien books, but could someone explain why no one was looking for the ring in the 17 year interim between the Hobbit adventures and LotR?

HegemonKhan
we can only speculate...

Obviously Bilbo would be using it (oh imagine the fun Bilbo would have in the Shire with the invisibilty), which alerts its presence to the minions (and the personal minions: Wraith Lords) of Sauron, but maybe somehow Bilbo resisted ever using~wearing the ring in those 17 year... unlikely ... actually Bilbo would be constantly running away from the Shire as he loved adventuring ~ seeing the world... well maybe not, maybe he realized the severity of the ring from his 'Hobbit book' adventures and stayed in the Shire the full 17 years to the 'LotR books'.

another possiblity, I don't think Sauron was as materialized in those 17 years yet, and Mordor was probably being built~raised up in those 17 years too.

----------

Gandalf knew Blbo had something, maybe even one of the lesser rings, but I don't think Gandalf realized that the ring that Bilbo had was THEE Ring (the master~One ring of Sauron's powers~soul~full manifestation itself, "one ring to rule them all"). Though, I could be wrong on this, as I've got no memory of the Hobbit, if there's a scene where Gandalf knows~suspects it's THEE~One Ring.

---------

if you have the time, obviously the books are much better, being much longer (more content) than movies are.

I read the series (Hobbit+LotR) way back when I was in Junior High (7-8th grade ~ 13-14 age) school, long long long before the first LotR movie came out, laughs

I never read the ~Samarialian though, which supposedly Tolkien explains much of the world and mysteries within it.

---------

if you liked Tolkien's series, then (again if you got the time and I mean a lot of time, lol), there's the gigantic Wheel of Time series by Robert Jordan, which is Tolkien on steroids, or as one person commented: ~"Tolkien gave us the door to the fantasy world, but Robert Jordan not only opens up the door, but takes us inside the doorway into the full potential of the fantasy world itself".

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:
if you have the time, obviously the books are much better, being much longer (more content) than movies are.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm hesitant to try the books because of how split opinion is. It seems people either adore them or hate them with a passion.

HegemonKhan
Frankly... there's not much depth and etc to Tolkien's series... now, Wheel of Time, on the other hand.... WOW! :D

----------

Tolkien's (Hobbit+LotR) series' boring simplicity:

there's only 4 wizards (Gandalf, Sarumon, that nature wizard, and that female elf wizard) that can exist at a time, due to how godly-like-powerful they are in the world of tolkien

the all-powerful (demi-god-like or god-like) and msyterious, ~ tom bambabii, character, except his power is limited to just a single spot in the world.

there's a few demi-gods and~or gods, only Sauron remains as manifested in the world (but this ends with Smaegol~Gollum destroying Sauron's "soul" his "One Ring" at the end of the LotR)

and that's pretty much it...

the ancient history is a much more interesting with the demi-gods ~ gods, Sauron's history, and etc stuff (you can just google-wiki this stuff, otherwise have to read the Samarilian book).

though, it's just norse mythology, laughs. most fantasy~RPG is 95%+ norse mythology.

--------------------------

P.S.

actually, one of the ONLY TRULY ORIGINAL STORIES that I've encountered ever:

the 'Wolf's Rain' anime series

magical wolves as the keys to paradise (a magical wish making anything come true) + magitek knights + 3 starship planet colonizing noble families (similar to the 'Jupiter Ascending' movie, but this anime is much older than it) + magic+technology + post-apocaliptic world

and the prophesy of-in Darcia I's "The Book of the Red Moon"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwX9NIzTyTU

what a truly unique combination and awesome story, hehe :D

OurJud
So if I was to read them, do I start with The Hobbit, or do I do it back to front like Peter Jackson did?

Also how many books are there of each (Hobbit and LotR) ?

R2T1
I originally read the Lord of the Rings books about 40 years ago then the Hobbit several years later. I think this is also the order that Tolkien wrote them but I may be wrong. I didn't have any problem doing it this way. I've re-read both twice since then and only saw the films after this. I was disappointed in how the films left out entire sections of the stories and even deviated at some points because it helped the movie 'flow' better or maybe it was just too hard to find or build the right environment although I think New Zealand would have had somewhere that could have been used.
Whereas 3 films for the LotR series may be justified to tell the story, I found 3 films for The Hobbit to be a bit too much considering the size of the books. However, I suppose the producers sought to capitalise on a good thing and try to redeem some of their investment.

As to number of books, there is only one for The Hobbit and three for the LotR although you can also get the 3 of them as a single book.
I can certainly recommend the reading of these in whichever order you choose. (Although the LotR books need to be read in order - The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers then The Return of the King.)

OurJud
R2T1 wrote:As to number of books, there is only one for The Hobbit and three for the LotR although you can also get the 3 of them as a single book.
I can certainly recommend the reading of these in whichever order you choose. (Although the LotR books need to be read in order - The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers then The Return of the King.)

Thanks, R2T1.

Another question; at the start of the first Hobbit film, we see Frodo and Bilbo conversing in their house. Where in the whole timescale does this come? Is it supposed to be a flashback to the events immediately prior to the LotR adventures, or some time after all that was over?

And I take it Martin Freeman is supposed to be Bilbo as a young man?

davidw
R2T1 wrote:I originally read the Lord of the Rings books about 40 years ago then the Hobbit several years later. I think this is also the order that Tolkien wrote them but I may be wrong.


The Hobbit was published in 1937 and LoTR in 1954/1955.

HegemonKhan
the in-world chronology of the main series:

The Hobbit (Series: 1st of 4: this is a single book, but the movie industry expanded it into 3 movies)
The Fellowship of the Ring (Series: 2nd of 4, LotR Trilogy: the 1st of 3)
The Two Towers (Series: 3rd of 4, LotR Trilogy: the 2nd of 3)
The Return of the King (Series: 4th-last of 4, LotR Trilogy: 3rd-last of 3)

each of the 4 books is not that long at ~500 pages each

I've no idea why you got the "Hobbit" and the "LotR Trilogy", if just confuses people... The 4 part Series: Hobbit -> Fellowship -> Towers -> King

------------

and then there's the "Silmarian" book for all of the backstory and greater depth and secrets to the series

HegemonKhan
"Another question; at the start of the first Hobbit film, we see Frodo and Bilbo conversing in their house. Where in the whole timescale does this come? Is it supposed to be a flashback to the events immediately prior to the LotR adventures, or some time after all that was over? (OurJud)"

if I remember right (in the movie anyways), this is NOT a flashback. Frodo is just visiting Bilbo, and then after Frodo leaves... Bilbo's journey begins (the events of: The Hobbit book)

In the beginning of the Fellowship of the Ring book, Frodo visits Bilbo again (who's now much older, and after his "adventuring"... the events of: The Hobbit book), where Bilbo amazingly resists the pull of the One Ring, allowing Frodo to take over its security (and ultimately destruction thanks to Smaegol~Gollum at the end of the Return of the King, destroying Sauron permanently)

At the end of the Return of the King, Bilbo heads to the western continent (a semi-"heaven"-like land), leaving the mortal eastern continent and Frodo behind.

OurJud
Thanks,

davidw
HegemonKhan wrote:I've no idea why you got the "Hobbit" and the "LotR Trilogy", if just confuses people... The 4 part Series: Hobbit -> Fellowship -> Towers -> King


It's not really a 4 part series, though. LoTR was originally written as one long book, but Tolkien's publishers felt it was too large so they made him split it into three parts. So really there are only two books in the series.

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:if I remember right (in the movie anyways), this is NOT a flashback. Frodo is just visiting Bilbo, and then after Frodo leaves... Bilbo's journey begins (the events of: The Hobbit book)

But wait, the opening scene from the first Hobbit film, where Frodo is visiting Bilbo, must have taken place before Frodo goes on his LotR adventures, because at the end of the LotR films Bilbo is a really old man, and leaves on the boat with Gandalf and Frodo.

davidw
Correct. Frodo comes to visit Bilbo at the start of the first Hobbit film, Bilbo starts to think back to his adventures 70 odd years before and then the Hobbit films relay what happened. After that, Frodo goes off on his adventures in LoTR.

OurJud
Right, got it.

In fact, aren't they preparing for the party at the start of TH, which was shown in full at the start of the first LotR film?

HegemonKhan
that's what I said... Frodo visits Bilbo before Bilbo goes off on his adventure (with the dwarves, finding the One Ring and smegol~gollum, smaug, and etc), and then Frodo visits Bilbo again (Bilbo has returned from his adventures), both of them older (though Bilbo's still not uber old yet), where Frodo is given the One Ring, and ultimate gets it destroyed in Mount Doom, when Frodo returns, Bilbo is now very old and goes off to the west continent.

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:that's what I said... Frodo visits Bilbo before Bilbo goes off on his adventure (with the dwarves, finding the One Ring and smegol~gollum, smaug, and etc)

I understand now, but that's not quite right. Frodo doesn't visit Bilbo before Bilbo's adventure where he finds the ring, because when Bilbo goes off on his adventures, Frodo hadn't even been born.

I know that's what happens in the film, but when Bilbo's adventure starts, it's a flashback to his youth.

The scene at the start of TH is actually Frodo visiting Bilbo before Frodo goes off on his adventure.

davidw
The events of The Hobbit take place roughly 70 years before the events in LoTR, so the scene with Frodo visiting Bilbo is indeed a flashback.

OurJud
Anyway, I think we're there now.

I've just ordered The Hobbit in paperback. I did consider buying the three LotR books at the same time, but thought I'd check to see if I like TH before spending money unnecessarily.

Is it a given that if I don't like TH book I won't like the LotR books either, or are they very different?

davidw
davidw wrote:The events of The Hobbit take place roughly 70 years before the events in LoTR, so the scene with Frodo visiting Bilbo is indeed a flashback.


Er... hang on. I'm confusing myself now :D It's a flashforward I meant, not a flashback. The scene where Frodo visits Bilbo happens after the events in The Hobbit and right before the beginning of LoTR.

davidw
OurJud wrote:Anyway, I think we're there now.

I've just ordered The Hobbit in paperback. I did consider buying the three LotR books at the same time, but thought I'd check to see if I like TH before spending money unnecessarily.

Is it a given that if I don't like TH book I won't like the LotR books either, or are they very different?


They're completely different. I liked The Hobbit but not so much LoTR. The Hobbit is aimed more at kids than adults - which is probably why I preferred it because I was only 11/12 when I read it - whereas LoTR is more an adult's book. They're very different in style so you might well love one and not be able to stand the other.

OurJud
davidw wrote:

"OurJud"

Anyway, I think we're there now.

I've just ordered The Hobbit in paperback. I did consider buying the three LotR books at the same time, but thought I'd check to see if I like TH before spending money unnecessarily.

Is it a given that if I don't like TH book I won't like the LotR books either, or are they very different?



They're completely different. I liked The Hobbit but not so much LoTR. The Hobbit is aimed more at kids than adults - which is probably why I preferred it because I was only 11/12 when I read it - whereas LoTR is more an adult's book. They're very different in style so you might well love one and not be able to stand the other.


Mmm, kind of which I'd skipped TH and gone straight for LotR. Still never mind.

R2T1
If you don't want to actually part with any ca$h and you are on Win 8, 8.1 or 10, then you can find the ebooks for LotR for free ($0.00) in the Store. Not too sure about the Hobbit as it seems to be in a foreign language. It says it supports US English but I haven't installed it to find out.

HegemonKhan
OurJud is still using XP, R2T1 ;)
(I actually was still using XP too, up until about a year ago, as I finally got a new computer... laughs)
(I don't know why people would get win 10 so early... lots of bugs... wait for the bugs to get found and corrected, then get win 10!)

OurJud
R2T1 wrote:If you don't want to actually part with any ca$h and you are on Win 8, 8.1 or 10, then you can find the ebooks for LotR for free ($0.00) in the Store. Not too sure about the Hobbit as it seems to be in a foreign language. It says it supports US English but I haven't installed it to find out.

I can't read off electronic devices, R2T1. Short stuff like forum posts and TA are fine, but novels HAVE to be in real book form or I don't read them.

OurJud
I've not wanted to see a film as desperately as I want to see this, for as long as I can remember.

https://youtu.be/LoebZZ8K5N0

XanMag
Totally agree. Looks awesome.

OurJud
I was all set to go along to my local one afternoon this week (you get the whole theatre to yourself in the afternoons), but it doesn't open here in the UK until the 15th :(

XanMag
I'm going to see it tomorrow evening. I'll be sure to post all spoilers here!

OurJud
XanMag wrote:I'm going to see it tomorrow evening. I'll be sure to post all spoilers here!


Let me know if it's worth me spending a fiver on.

XanMag
OJ!!! I'm going in!!! :D

Hmmm... The verdict... quite honestly is I don't know. It's definitely NOT a bad movie. Spend a few bucks, go see it and let me know what you think. I'm glad I saw it in the theater and if you can see it in 3-D (I don't know if they even made a 3-D version) it would be totally kick ass.

For now, I'll give it a solid B+.

OurJud
I'll have to wait a weeks as it doesn't open here until the 15th, but I'll go and have a look one affy next week.

OurJud
I came by the Ealing Comedies box set a few months ago, and have watched a couple more over the last week or so. I love some of them - The Lady Killers in particular, but the ones which are held in such high esteem by the critics, I've found to be rather dull.

Kind and Hearts and Coronets, which is playing as I type and regarded by many to be a masterpiece and Ealing's best, is completely failing to engage me on any level.

XanMag
@OurJud,

You ever go watch The Revenant? I'm curious to your opinion.

OurJud
I did, Xan, and enjoyed it! It's ridiculously overlong and not something I have any interest in revisiting, but I'm glad I saw it.

Over the last couple of weeks I've watched Terminator Genisys, Tomorrowland (both of which were slated on Rotten Tomatoes, but I enjoyed immensely - especially the latter) and all three Ocean's... films, which I also enjoyed very much.

HegemonKhan
for me, I thought Terminator Genisys and Tomorrowland were both trash/lame (Tomorrowland had such potential but they ruined it, especially it's uber lame brain-less retarded plot reveal/end). I like Terminator Salvation, that was good unlike trash Terminator Genisys

I've never watched any of the ocean's elevens... I'm sure I wouldn't like them... so am not interested in even trying to watch one of them.

-------

still haven't seen any good movies... sighs... all are disappointments... actually, Pride and Prejudice with Zombies, was decent...

so many movies are coming out soon/soonish... and probably most, if not all, will be disappointments... sighs.

I really think that the video game makers, will have good movies, as they're so much better story tellers and designers, than stupid movie producers and writers... Please will Warcraft and Assassin's Creed be good! lol.

-----

the sci-fi (syfy) channel is really making some good series now!

12 Monkeys // I just hope people don't forget the actual movie, which was awesome, with Bruce Willis, and it's awesome plot concept.
Defiance
Helix
Dark Matter
Killjoys
~Hunters (still on the fence with this one, in whether I like it or not)

-- Wynonna Earp, it's not that good, a bit too sappy/girlish of a show (similar to Lost Girl in being more oriented to female viewers: "girlish")

12 Monkeys, Helix, and Dark Matter are my favorite. Defiance was good. Killjoys is my least favorite of them, excluding Hunters (which I'm still trying to decide if I like it or not, lol).

davidw
I liked both Tomorrowland and Terminator Genisys and was quite surprised when neither were very well received. I thought the Terminator film was a massive step up from the previous two and Emilia Clarke did a really good job in the Sarah Connor role.

OurJud
davidw wrote:I liked both Tomorrowland and Terminator Genisys and was quite surprised when neither were very well received. I thought the Terminator film was a massive step up from the previous two and Emilia Clarke did a really good job in the Sarah Connor role.

During the first 15 minutes of TG I was groaning at the CGI-orgy unfolding before me - so much so I was on the verge of bailing out, but then when it went back in time to 1984 I was really surprised (and impressed) at how much like a 'proper' Terminator film it felt.

HegemonKhan wrote:still haven't seen any good movies... sighs... all are disappointments... actually, Pride and Prejudice with Zombies, was decent...

Any respect I may have had for your opinions on film just withered up and died :?

HegemonKhan
from finding Pride and Prejudice with Zombies as a decent movie or from finding Terminator Gensys and Tomarrowland as trash ?

if it's due to Pride and Prejdice with Zombies, did you actually see the movie? As it was quite decent. I'm not qualifying it as "good", especially my rating of "good", but it was surprisingly decent, and not trash like most movies.

I'd actually describe Pride and Prejudice with Zombies this way:

think of The Princess Bride, except in the opposite direction, it's humor was focused on the seriousness of the state of world, and not on comedy as in The Princess Bride. It's literally Pride and Prejudice for MALES, what we find as "romantic" (COMBAT, VIOLENCE, GORE, As-kicking no-nonsense sexy ladies, etc), laughs.

-----

P.S.

I reminded myself of The Princess Bride.... I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE that movie... I WAS BORED OUTA MY MIND... when I had to watch it, the entire thing... BORED INTO OBLIVION...

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:P.S.

I reminded myself of The Princess Bride.... I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE that movie... I WAS BORED OUTA MY MIND... when I had to watch it, the entire thing... BORED INTO OBLIVION...

:shock: I honestly doubt our tastes in movies could be further apart.

In all honestly I haven't seen P&P with Zombies, but when you compared it to The Princess Bride I thought I should at least give it a look because I loved The Princess Bride. But then you go on to say how much you hated it, which tells me I will, as I suspect, hate P&P with Zomibies.

HegemonKhan
well.. give it a try, probably you won't like it (our tastes do seem to be polar opposites lol), but maybe you will... I think it is decent enough to watch at least once, and you can then make up your mind in whether it was decent, good, or awful. It really is basically Pride and Prejudice (if you've seen this and you did't like it, then you may not like Pride and Prejudice with Zombies), except with zombies (it's very violent and gorey, but in a humorous-serious way even if that shouldn't be possible, being an oxymoron, but it is, not sure how they did, but they did, lol)... This movie surprised me, I wasn't suspecting it to be decent, I like a lot of people laughed when I heard of this movie, but I and some others I know who've seen it, have been surprised by it, finding it not goofy at all despite how the name of it gave that initial impression). Also, it does have a Tarantino feel to it, the way it's told and with the violence.

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:(our tastes do seem to be polar opposites lol)

It's what makes the world go round :)

I might give it a look, but I'll have to force myself.

Just watched Moneyball (already seen it a few years ago, but thought I'd watch it again). I have absolutely no interest in baseball, but coming from a Brit that should come as no real surprise. Regardless, it's a frikkin brilliant film and I can thoroughly recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it.

HegemonKhan
It's impact upon sports is only marginal, and all teams are using it to some degree too, so it becomes the same universal strategy as all of the other strategies involved in trying to generate a winning team.

also, baseball's physical attendance in the stadium is really dying... as it's just too boring a sport, for people nowadays, compared to all of the much more exciting sports out there. Also, the drive/traffic/time down to a stadium is very detrimental, along with all of the greatly increasing violence from gangs and/or "fans" too, makes it completely unappealing to families obviously, not fun getting shot or stabbed to death. Also families don't like drunk fans shouting obscenities with their children hearing it. Human's behavior is really degrading/degressing everywhere, sighs.

I also wonder how much video games, epsecially with how good their graphics and realism are now, are impacting physical sports too...

---------

I wasn't very impress by the movie, and while the strategy at first was interesting as I never knew of it (the ONLY appeal of the movie to me), isn't so neat now that I look back upon it.

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:I wasn't very impress by the movie, and while the strategy at first was interesting as I never knew of it (the ONLY appeal of the movie to me), isn't so neat now that I look back upon it.

Well in that I loved it I'd have bet good money on you not. I honestly don't think I've ever met anyone whose tastes in movies is so far removed from my own.

OurJud
Watched Gravity tonight and can't say I understand all the fuss. I made it to the end which is always a positive for the film, but I found it all a little shallow with no room for character development of any kind. It all seemed to be over very quickly, too.

Very mediocre, but it seems I'm in the minority with that opinion.

HegemonKhan
the polar ice caps melt! polar opposites are in agreement!

I never saw Gravity, as my impression of it is just hearing a girl screaming that she has a new problem after new problem, as she maybe flies off into (a) space (death), or maybe they decided to give a happy ending and she doesn't fly off into space. So, I'm like, I'm not going to be interested nor impressed with this movie, thus I've never seen it.

I've already seen enough retarded such plots (disaster/doomsday movies): Apollo 13, The Core, Armaggeddon, Twister, ~Volcano, etc etc etc... (that I can't remember)

OurJud
You did right to avoid. While it wasn't quite as terrible as you paint it, you certainly didn't miss much, and it was as you suspect very very retarded in terms of plausibility.

jaynabonne
Another implausible film was the recent "The Martian", but I must say I enjoyed that one anyway, unlike "Gravity". I think "Gravity" might work better on the big screen (I saw it on a television), as perhaps the effects could make up for the lack of a story (or rather: without the effects, there would be no movie). But I know I was wondering afterwards what the fuss was all about.

HegemonKhan
I added 'Apollo 13' to the list as it was an example of a disaster/doomsday movie, but it at least is based off of a real situation (no idea how accurate it was to what actually happened with the actual apollo 13 flight, and/or its "science" to real science ~ I haven't seen it since it came out... like 20 or so years ago - so I don't remember it at all).

I forgot to mention 'The Martian', but I never saw it anyways, as I'm like... hmm... Matt Damonien pretending to be a scientist.... riiiight... a retarded actor pretending to be a smart scientist, ya I wanna see that movie (sarcasm). Just like how retarded Hollywood portrays business... ya... businesses and their bosses and employees are really just justin beibers having frat/porn/sex parties... ya that's really the world of business... ya uh huh... um no, that's the world of retarded bimbo slut hollywood celebrities and actors, who've never contributed a damn thing to society's wellness/advancement, unlike the businesses and their bosses and employees providing society with wonderful technology, products, and services, that they portray so dead wrongly, lol. Please show me a business and a boss/employee who're immature retarded justin beibers who need a very brutal spanking and frat/porn/slut parties, please, give me one such example!

I'm so fed up with the immature dodo-bird brained retarded losers of hollywood and other entertainers (singers, musicians, athletes, and etc). Stop destroying human society! Stop commiting crimes, damned criminals and their assitances/enablers/inciters/encouragers! Anarchy reigns supreme, death to human society. massive degression and destruction. Why did I have to be born through this wretched backwardness/degression of humanity. Thanks a lot for making the 21st century even more wretched, vile, and evil than the 20th century, ya... a new better age/century, a golden era of human behaviorism... HAH... and I get to enjoy it...

welcome to the 21st century... the century of liberalism/terrorism:

THE CENTURY OF THE CRAZZIES,

THE AGE OF MADNESS!

OurJud
jaynabonne wrote:Another implausible film was the recent "The Martian", but I must say I enjoyed that one anyway, unlike "Gravity". I think "Gravity" might work better on the big screen (I saw it on a television), as perhaps the effects could make up for the lack of a story (or rather: without the effects, there would be no movie). But I know I was wondering afterwards what the fuss was all about.

Yes, I enjoyed The Martian on pretty much the same level as yourself.

Tonight's film was the new Jungle Book. It lacks the magic of Disney's traditional cartoons, and the story-telling of their Pixar features, but an enjoyable enough film and worth your time if only for Christopher Walken's King Louie, and more specifically his rendition of I wanna Be Like You. The CGI jungle characters are very impressive - even jaw-dropping in some cases - and it's only their actions that tell you what you're seeing isn't real.

HegemonKhan
The Jungle Book could've been really good (and it was done well), but it was too short and/or too much children singing scenes and like-scenes. I do understand though that it is suppose to be for children and was trying to copy/repeat the original old cartoon jungle book movie's scenes and etc, made by disney long ago now. I would've like a Jungle Book for adults, and it would've been awesome as this movie was otherwise well done, it could have been really good, if it was a movie made for adults, with less childish/singing-boring scenes (for example, the living with that bear scene and the orangutan scene especially with all that singing-ugh!, was way too long). Also, they need to remove the elephants redirecting the river, that just happens to allow overflowing perfectly to remove the forest fire, how absurd, lol.

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:... and the orangutan scene especially with all that singing-ugh!, was way too long...

Have you lost your mind? Christopher Walken's King Louie steals the whole movie.

HegemonKhan
my mind was not amused, I had no interest in that stupid singing scene what-so-ever. Why such the big deal about it? It's just boring disney singing scene.

davidw
I saw Gravity and really liked it. I didn't think it was quite as good as the critics made it out to be - but then when are films ever that good? - but I definitely enjoyed watching it.

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:Why such the big deal about it? It's just boring Disney singing scene.

Well it was Disney, and it was The Jungle Book, so I the I Wanna Be Like You song is kind of part and parcel of the film. It wouldn't really be Disney's The Jungle Book without it.

davidw wrote:I saw Gravity and really liked it. I didn't think it was quite as good as the critics made it out to be - but then when are films ever that good? - but I definitely enjoyed watching it.

I certainly didn't hate it. Bullock was very good, but I was disappointed at how little Clooney was in it as I really like him.

HegemonKhan
ah, okay, so the whole scene and the singing along with it, was done really well, following the original disney scene and its singing. Thank you, OurJud, for explaining why some people are so enamored by it.

My problem is that I just don't care at all about the scene and nor the singing. Just not my interest what-so-ever.

OurJud
HegemonKhan wrote:My problem is that I just don't care at all about the scene and nor the singing. Just not my interest what-so-ever.

I don't recall anybody asking you to care :shock:

davidw
HegemonKhan wrote:I added 'Apollo 13' to the list as it was an example of a disaster/doomsday movie, but it at least is based off of a real situation (no idea how accurate it was to what actually happened with the actual apollo 13 flight, and/or its "science" to real science ~ I haven't seen it since it came out... like 20 or so years ago - so I don't remember it at all).

I forgot to mention 'The Martian', but I never saw it anyways, as I'm like... hmm... Matt Damonien pretending to be a scientist.... riiiight... a retarded actor pretending to be a smart scientist, ya I wanna see that movie (sarcasm). Just like how retarded Hollywood portrays business... ya... businesses and their bosses and employees are really just justin beibers having frat/porn/sex parties... ya that's really the world of business... ya uh huh... um no, that's the world of retarded bimbo slut hollywood celebrities and actors, who've never contributed a damn thing to society's wellness/advancement, unlike the businesses and their bosses and employees providing society with wonderful technology, products, and services, that they portray so dead wrongly, lol. Please show me a business and a boss/employee who're immature retarded justin beibers who need a very brutal spanking and frat/porn/slut parties, please, give me one such example!

I'm so fed up with the immature dodo-bird brained retarded losers of hollywood and other entertainers (singers, musicians, athletes, and etc). Stop destroying human society! Stop commiting crimes, damned criminals and their assitances/enablers/inciters/encouragers! Anarchy reigns supreme, death to human society. massive degression and destruction. Why did I have to be born through this wretched backwardness/degression of humanity. Thanks a lot for making the 21st century even more wretched, vile, and evil than the 20th century, ya... a new better age/century, a golden era of human behaviorism... HAH... and I get to enjoy it...

welcome to the 21st century... the century of liberalism/terrorism:

THE CENTURY OF THE CRAZZIES,

THE AGE OF MADNESS!


I really can't decide if it's all tongue in cheek or you actually believe all that nonsense, but it's really hard to take you seriously when you go off on bizarre rants like that.

OurJud
I can only congratulate you for getting to the end of his post, david. I know I didn't.

davidw
Well, I didn't actually read it all. I tend to see the first few lines of his posts and something inside me just dies at the broken English, weird hyphenation, "retarded" this and that, and I just stop reading. I made an attempt to read that post, but gave up in the second paragraph. There's only so many times I can read how "retarded" something is before I find I just don't want to read anymore.

XanMag
I find it very difficult to be absorbed by films heavy in science. As a science teacher I'm very distracted by bad science. Apollo 13 was fairly accurate, but there wasn't a TON of science that was up front. Gravity... I couldn't get into it. The science was SO VERY BAD. 99% of it caused me to cringe. It had to be the most unbelievable science themed movie in a couple decades. And I really like the actors in it too. I have yet to see the Martian because I enjoy just about every one of Damon's films and I'm always super critical of science themed movies. Don't want to ruin a good thing. Anyone know if the science is believable enough to make it enjoyable? Or at least enough to suspend my willingness to disbelieve.

davidw
It seemed realistic enough to me when I watched it but then I'm no scientist so I guess it could all have been hopefully far-fetched nonsense which could never have happened in real life. I'm quite happy to suspend belief for a good movie, though.

XanMag
I try. I honestly do. :D

OurJud
Give it a go, Xan. That's all you can do. I'm guessing a man of your profession will know soon enough if it's complete hokum, or just liberal with its use of artistic licence.

HegemonKhan
@XanMag:

I still haven't found/gotten the answer as to what can/does actually happen in space (when your spacesuit is torn/damaged/no space suit), and what of those things, will kill you first, laughs. Do you explode, do you die from background radiation, do you suffocate, etc etc etc

if interested XanMag, I'm a huge science nerd, and thus love to talk science stuff, hehe.

What subject(s) in science do you know and/or have degrees in?

-----------------

HK edit:

arg, can't delete post... guess there's a time limit for being able to delete, lol.

XanMag
Well... It kind of depends on how close you are to the sun. Lol. In the in between most space between stars you will inflate (but not explode) as N-gas leaves your body. You won't freeze (although you'll get colder) because there is nothing to conduct heat away from your body. Essentially, the thing that kills you is the same thing that would happen when you suffocate. Your brain stops after 20 or so seconds and thereafter your organs begin shutting down. You've got 20 seconds of 'Oh Shit' followed by 4-5 minutes of your organs quitting.

All things biology related. My favorite class to teach is human anatomy and physiology. But... I find space science very interesting, too.

@OJ - I've come close a couple times. I'll give it a shot and let you know what I think.

HegemonKhan
(I made a thread for science discussions and moved my responding post there)

----------

anyways, back to movies...

saw previews of Tarzan (I forgotten this was coming out, lol), I hope it'll be that adult version of the Jungle Book that I had wished Jungle Book was... we'll see... (as always, I'll likely be disappointed, sighs).

jaynabonne
XanMag wrote:I find it very difficult to be absorbed by films heavy in science. As a science teacher I'm very distracted by bad science. Apollo 13 was fairly accurate, but there wasn't a TON of science that was up front. Gravity... I couldn't get into it. The science was SO VERY BAD. 99% of it caused me to cringe. It had to be the most unbelievable science themed movie in a couple decades. And I really like the actors in it too. I have yet to see the Martian because I enjoy just about every one of Damon's films and I'm always super critical of science themed movies. Don't want to ruin a good thing. Anyone know if the science is believable enough to make it enjoyable? Or at least enough to suspend my willingness to disbelieve.


I found the science realistic for most of the film (and there were some good problem-solving bits which, I think, involved what you would actually have to do in such a situation). The only part where you might roll your eyes a bit is the climax, where the one-in-a-million (or more) thing happens as it needs to for the film to come to is desired conclusion. But besides that, I had no trouble suspending disbelief.

OurJud
Out of Sight - George Clooney, Ving Rhames, Jennifer Lopez.

Loved this, but then it helps if you like George Clooney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmfG7YF_5MA

XanMag
So, I can't comment on Out of Sight yet, but I did watch The Martian today. Surprisingly enough, it was not as heavy in science as I thought so being distracted by the potential wrongness of it all wasn't a problem after all. And... the concluding scene in space was at least mildly believable and not a negative. At one point, about 2 hours in, my wife made a comment about reading the book and my 13 year old daughter said, "I bet THAT was a long book." Despite its length, I enjoyed it and we all watched it together without leaving our living room. I would give it a solid B-rating... about the same I would give Apollo 13.

Tarzan: yep, another disappointment, total trash. Like Jungle Book, it had such potential, and they totally failed.

Star Trek: Beyond: again a disappointment, total trash. Star Trek and Star Trek: Into Darkness, were good/decent. Someone really failed with Beyond (was it the same director/writer as the other two or a different one? if the same... must be fatigue-laziness)


I guess I'll go see Jason Bourne... I liked Bourne Legacy (the movie withOUT Matt Damon), it was very good for the type of movie it is (better than all the Bourne movies with Matt Damon trash), and so I doubt Jason Bourne will be better than Bourne Legacy, but meh, I've seen all the Bourne movies thus far, might as well see the (probably, lol) last one.

I'm looking forward (never hopeful though - as most movies fail hard) to Suicide Squad, but we'll see if it's actually good or is yet another disappointment.


I just watched my fav film 'Leon' again recently and it never gets old. A must watch if you haven't read it.


Jason Bourne and Suicide Squad were both trash. Also, Kubo was trash too.

Hadn't got around to seeing the Mechanic 2 (Resurrection or whatever it is called) yet.

Pete's Dragon was actually a decent movie for what it was, a bit scary/realistic for kids (at least my old generation anyways), but otherwise a not bad kid movie. Not great, not good, but not bad. It was a decent as the kid movie that it is. I saw the original Pete's Dragon cartoon/cartoon-movie (whatever it was, lol) as a kid, but I have zero recollection of it, sighs, so, I can't compare the movie to it.


This topic is now closed. Topics are closed after 60 days of inactivity.

Support

Forums