Morgoth Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 What have I just watched? Something awesome. Rain makes everything better.
Theseus Posted January 14, 2012 Posted January 14, 2012 Watching Star Trek TNG in a bout of nostalgia. You really can't do everything with rubber facemolds. Well you can, but it's not exactly easy on the eyes. That's from Voyager, I know. God I hate Neelix. Juhani's creepy uncle?
Calax Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 neelix! Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
Morgoth Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Jodaeiye Nader az Simin One of the best movies I've seen in years, and I don't say that lightly. No really, watch it. Rain makes everything better.
Raithe Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Flypaper - Patrick Dempsey as a man caught up in a bank, when two seperate groups of bank robbers strike. Throw in Ashley Judd as the teller he starts to fall for, and events unwind in a rather twisty manner revealing that more then just two bank robberies are going on... Especially when dead bodies start hitting the floor. A nicely humerous crime comedy all in all, nicely structured and thought out. "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Volourn Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Just watched two movies that had slow starts but ended well. Scream 4 - They tried to get way too cute with the opening sequence. One trick opening was enough but the movie in a movie in a movie in a movie along with a full explaination was way too meta and made my head hurt on how theyw ere trying too hard. The new characters were solid, and the writing wa smostly hit (except for the first part). Sidney prescott proves once again that she is the REAL Scream Queen. Gale just seemed superfulous in this one. People cried that Sidney didn't die but as theya re possibly planning two more, I say Sidney should NEVER die in these films. Not the strongest in the franchise but still very good. 8.5/10 Toy Story 3 - Best scene in the entire movie was about the toys though it didn't really involve them. It was when Andy wa splaying with the little girl. That was good stuff. The rest of it was ok. 8/10 Edited January 16, 2012 by Volourn DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Tale Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 Speaking of rubber foreheads, I'm enjoying my Farscape blu-rays. I honestly don't know if the quality is any better than the DVD. If it is, it's not significant. I still love this series. I have to get in my hour or two daily. I need my fix. Just finished The Locket. D'awww, John and Aeryn. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
HoonDing Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Centurion, Ironclad Both movies featured Christopher Lambert clones as protagonists, Centurion had an interesting premise of the mysterious disappearance of the IXth legion in Britannia, but it quickly deteriorated into Enemy behind the Lines set in Roman times, with some Magnificent Seven thrown in. The action was... pretty bad, except for some Battle in the Teutoburg Forest knock-off early in the movie. There was also some nonsense about a mute Russian supermodel huntress kicking everyone's ass, and a Pictish witch named "Arianne". Overall, pretty mediocre, but at least the moviemakers had the guts of having pretty much everyone kick the bucket in the end, plus it wasn't *that* historically incorrect. As for Ironclad, this one was much better. It again basically came down to the Magnificent Seven in medieval times, but as I understand, it was quite historically correct (dealing with the aftermath of the Magna Charta), the actor who portrayed King John was pretty brilliant plus the movie features some very brutal/realistic medieval combat (and torture scenes) that Hollywood movies set in the same era nowadays (say, Kingdom of Heaven) completely lack. The only downside was a cringe-worthy underdeveloped romance subplot between a Templar struggling with his oaths and a young noblewoman. Oh, and I guess another (minor) quibble was the discovery of Vladimir Kulich's man-boobs. Edited January 16, 2012 by virumor The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Malcador Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 Druids with Christopher Lambert was on TV. Just...wow. I did like the needless 45 degree tilting of the camera when the 'legion' is marching. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Walsingham Posted January 18, 2012 Posted January 18, 2012 Burn with the undeserving! (NSFW) (Biblical) "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp.
Tale Posted January 19, 2012 Author Posted January 19, 2012 My Farscape Blu-Rays have a defect. Season 2, disc 5. Thankfully it's only during the "previously on" sequence, so no content is skipped. But this is annoying. I had a defect on my DVDs, too. I've only ever had 4 defects buying movies, no defects in game discs. Two of those defects were from Farscape. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater."
Raithe Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Okay, I have to wonder whether this is serious or not.. If it is, that could be...interesting. "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Orogun01 Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 Saw "One Day" a tale about the lives of two peoples that develops on just one day year by year, by year 5 you realize that's it's a 2 hour story about the stupidity of two friends who should just hook up already. Very unsatisfying climax, but the getting there it's decent. Also, I'm noticing a pattern in Anne Hathaway movies, seems like she is getting typecasted for the same comedic tragic characters. I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"* *If you can't tell, it's you.
Gfted1 Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Game of Thrones season two trailer. http://www.hbo.com/video/video.html/?autoplay=true&vid=1234943&filter=game-of-thrones&view=null "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Hurlshort Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I just finished Game of Thrones Season 1, it was fantastic. I've had less luck with the other films I've tried to watch recently. The Dilemma - This is a comedy about a guy who finds out his best friend's wife is cheating. But it really was more uncomfortable than funny. I only watched half of it. The Green Hornet - I thought this might be funny, but it really was just off and Seth Rogen is fairly unlikable. Again I only made it halfway through. I might try and finish it, but I doubt it. The villian seems somewhat entertaining. Clash of the Titans - Great special effects, but they really took the greek myths and butchered them. It's just a mess, I found myself laughing out loud a lot and it wasn't really a comedy at all. I finished it because my wife made me. Arthur - This one actually seems decent. I had to go to bed so I still have an hour left in it, but it was picking up and getting pretty funny when I stopped it. Jennifer Garner is great as a terrible person and his love interest is charming. Helen Mirren is also fantastic. Katy Perry's ex husband was a bit annoying at first, but it is toned down later in the movie.
LadyCrimson Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 The Thing (prequel) - meh. Not badly done or anything like that, but such a retread it held no suspense for me whatsoever. And no one in the cast with the presence/fun of a Kurt Russell. The cgi creature effects looked better, of course, but somehow the old models are still technically more impressive, because of all the work that goes into those, vs. clicking pixels on a computer.... Moneyball - awesome, just awesome. Drive - action trying to be arty? It was ok I guess. Not as action-oriented as I was expecting. The bit players (Cranston, Brooks) were the best things. And wtf was up with the main chr. wearing that face mask at the end? To what purpose/what for? Just to be visually artsy I think.... “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Hurlshort Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 I loved Moneyball as well. It's definitely a baseball lover's movie. 1
Gorgon Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 They think up an accurate scoring system for rating a player's market value, and that's the plot. Seriously. That's it. Spoiler tags are gone, but you'll live. Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Gorgon Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 (edited) Drive : doushebag hipster 80s retro crap. Fell asleep in the middle. Edited February 2, 2012 by Gorgon Na na na na na na ... greg358 from Darksouls 3 PVP is a CHEATER. That is all.
Hurlshort Posted February 2, 2012 Posted February 2, 2012 They think up an accurate scoring system for rating a player's market value, and that's the plot. Seriously. That's it. Spoiler tags are gone, but you'll live. It's more about a small market team finding a way to compete against big markets with gigantic payrolls, but really it's the story of Billy Beane and his unique path to stardom. I think it's a bigger deal for me because I live in the Bay Area and watched it all unfold, even as a non-A's fan.
Blarghagh Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 The Thing (prequel) - meh. Not badly done or anything like that, but such a retread it held no suspense for me whatsoever. And no one in the cast with the presence/fun of a Kurt Russell. The cgi creature effects looked better, of course, but somehow the old models are still technically more impressive, because of all the work that goes into those, vs. clicking pixels on a computer.... As someone who has experience with both CG and practical special effects, I passionately hate this very common but false view. CG is just as much work as most practical effects, the only people who have it easier are the director and the set creators who don't have to build sets and stage his shots around the special effects but we get the bad rep for how much easier we make their jobs. It pisses me off to no end.
Morgoth Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 Agree with TrueNeutral here, people who are claiming cgi is just a matter of "clicking pixels on a computer" are plain ignorant and clueless. Rain makes everything better.
Raithe Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 I caught Outlander on tv last night, and reminded that it's a fairly decent movie. Jim Caviezel, as a man from a far off planet crashlands his ship and ends up in Northern Europe, dealing with Vikings. Throw in the alien predator involved who's called a Moorwen and looks like a very funky non-winged dragon, and you get the whole "basis for myth" type of sci-fi/fantasy story. Add Sophia Myles as eye-candy and chief's daughter with a sword... Quirky fact, they actually put in some Icelandic as it was spoken in the early middle ages.. "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
LadyCrimson Posted February 3, 2012 Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) @TrueNeutral - sorry if my hurriedly written internet post triggered a pet peeve. I didn't mean CGi is less work work - time or energy or any of that. I'm a millions miles from a special effects person, but I know even fiddling with digital photography effects can take "forever," haha. It's more that I personally find the aesthetics & physical dimension of making the models by hand/stop motion or other practical methods(especially in live-action films) etc. to be a lot more interesting and to a degree, often a lot better looking. If done well of course...you can have a lot of crap practical effects too.... I dunno, it has a better "energy" to me. So *I* get cranky when I see the same CGI-looking stuff over and over and over and over that (as an "ignornant viewer"), often looks cut & pasted from another movie, no matter how many tons of time/work were actually put into them. CGI, especially for "monsters & creatures" often looks (imo) colorful, but flat & sterile compared to some practical effects, even when the practical effects are outdated & look a bit cheesy now (as in the 1982 The Thing, from a 2012 perspective). Something about having real 3 dimensions for the camera to photograph, maybe, versus CGI created 3 dimension. I kinda liked it when movies seemed to be (more often) using more of a mix of practical & CGI effects as the CGI tech was developing, and I dislike the (seeming) trend towards being almost all CGI...simply because I don't think it looks that great yet. There's always exceptions of course (Gollum impressed me) but overall...film CGI is meh. Unrelated: I re-watched Carpenter's The Thing, and it did make me appreciate the recent prequel's attempts at certain bits of continuity & the overall recreation of the "look & feel" of the older film. Outfits, color, setting/mood, color tone, etc. Edited February 3, 2012 by LadyCrimson “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts
Blarghagh Posted February 4, 2012 Posted February 4, 2012 Fair enough, I do agree with that. The problem is that the special effects departments don't often work with the cinematographers, it would be very easy to fix if Hollywood didn't just go "we'll leave it to the FX guys". If the cinematographers would just come in and fix the lighting in the CG, that vaguely out of place, watery and sterile feeling would all but disappear. It bothers me a lot that when I go back to watch 1993's Jurassic Park, the CG is still better than 90% of what's out there now, and that's all because Spielberg got people who knew their ****. They were practical effects guys who had to work with CG, and in doing so retained a lot of their knowledge. This current generation of CG-is-all special effects departments just doesn't have that expertise, and can't have that expertise because there's no one around to teach them. I hate that practical effects seem to have no place in blockbusters anymore even though it will usually give a better result, I'm glad there are still those Christopher Nolan's around to push for them, and I wish Hollywood would try to use CGI to it's strengths, not as an end all solution. In fact the only real issue I had with your original post was that you said "because of all the work that goes into those, vs. clicking pixels on a computer....", which made me think you held the same view as many people I've talked to in that "computer animation huh? that must be easy, just fill in a few parameters and the computer does the rest" and I'm glad to see you don't share that view. I personally love the artistry of a good animatronic, but I also love the artistry of a good CG effect and I know from experience that both require a lot of patience and hard work. But there are a lot of bad CG effects out there, and animatronics aren't used much anymore so due to nostalgia most people don't recall that there used to be a lot of terribly practical effects out there as well.
Recommended Posts