Movies You've Seen Recently

[Walsingham]

RRight. you chaps have convinced me to watch world war z.

[Orogun01]

Is it another propaganda film where the US is the supreme force fighting against the hordes of foreigners that threaten our freedoms. We been getting a lot of those lately, if I didn't know better I would think we're being prepped for a regime.

[Walsingham]

Is it another propaganda film where the US is the supreme force fighting against the hordes of foreigners that threaten our freedoms. We been getting a lot of those lately, if I didn't know better I would think we're being prepped for a regime.

 

If so, bloody get on with it, so Hollywood can change the record.

[Amentep]

Is it another propaganda film where the US is the supreme force fighting against the hordes of foreigners that threaten our freedoms. We been getting a lot of those lately, if I didn't know better I would think we're being prepped for a regime.

Well if its WWZ you're talking about the main character work for the UN.

The US Military pretty much gets screwed but takes over Nova Scotia (well okay Canada might have just been being nice, its what they do). The tide turning event happens in the UK at some WHO offices (located at Cardiff, Wales - Doctor Who in-joke?) with other important information being picked up in South Korea and Israel

 

Edited July 1, 2013 by Amentep

[Rosbjerg]

RRight. you chaps have convinced me to watch world war z.

 

I simply cannot grasp (well of course I can, but for dramatic effect let's assume not) why Max Brooks would agree to this adaptation.. It took all that was great about the book, the slow pace the what-if, the suspense and turned it into a ****fest of fast zombies and tsunami death.. A pox! on the imbecile who thought this wise! (watching Henry V, can't help myself)

[sorophx]

Bad if you want to get swept away in a narrative.

hmmm, interestingly that's exactly what happened to me, I just couldn't stop watching it, I was so immersed in the story. that could be because of very strong performances and not the story, of course. it's hard to tell.

 

the raid on UBLs compound *was* too weak, though

[Amentep]

 

RRight. you chaps have convinced me to watch world war z.

 

I simply cannot grasp (well of course I can, but for dramatic effect let's assume not) why Max Brooks would agree to this adaptation.. It took all that was great about the book, the slow pace the what-if, the suspense and turned it into a ****fest of fast zombies and tsunami death.. A pox! on the imbecile who thought this wise! (watching Henry V, can't help myself)

 

Might not have had any control once it was licensed.

 

But there's no way the slow pace would translate to a film (would have to have been a series of some kind).

[Calax]

 

 

 

They've tried pushing it closer to the "real" world then a comic book ala Batman Begins, but I wonder how effective that is when you start losing the comicbook campy elements about a man in a bright blue suit who jumps tall buildings and is faster then a speeding bullet and is always impecabbly moral and ethical regardless of the temptation of vast power.

 

That's the thing though, Batman works in a "real" setting because it's at least theoretically plausible. Superman has to just grab the super powers and run with it, because he's an alien from another planet who can fly, breath ice, shoot heat from his eyes, see just about anything, hear just about anything, and has monumental levels of strength (to the point they invented "Tactile telekenisis" for him). I mean, Secret Identity is probably the blueprint for how something like this should have gone (up until the college years maybe) where the kid learns about his powers and slowly comes to grip with them, then starts learning the dark side to publicity, then tries to do all of his heroing without being seen etc.

 

Instead we get a character who's built around (public conciousness wise) saving everyone, and doing the right thing, who doesn't really do either of those things. I'm not asking for a carbon copy of Christopher Reeve's superman, but the scene in Superman IV(?) where superman is screaming "THE PEOPLE! NOT THE PEOPLE!" is something that should be a core component of Superman's personality.

 

 

And this is HUGE SPOILERZ!

 

I will go out on a limb and say I don't mind that they had Superman Kill. He's actually done it in the comics, to the same person no less, so I don't think it's THAT big a deal that he actually killed the guy. BUT! It's how it's handled. In the movie he just sort of shrugs it off, even though something like that should be hyper-traumatic. In the comics I'm talking about, Superman had defeated a Zod Ursa and Non trio from a pocket dimension by removing their super powers. However those villians taunted superman by basically stating that they're gonna just turn around, get their powers back, and attack his own universe and he'd be defenseless because the kryptonite that'd be able to kill these villains would be gone (pocket universe). So Superman executes them on the lifeless leftover of their earth, and proceeds to have a near complete mental breakdown when he gets back because he can't reconsile the executions with his moral codes. He ends up spending some time having a second personality (who's also a vigilante but more in line with DKR "I kill you" Batman) before exiling himself into space. And in space he learns FAR more about his heritage, gets the Ereadicator, and is able to rebuild himself by breaking Warworld.

 

Basically what I'm saying is that I'd be great with "superman kills" as a story, if they spent the next movie expanding on the psycological consequences of that.

 

 

 

 

 

He shrugs it off?  He breaks down crying and then we jump in time to sometime later.  Not sure that counts as "shrugs it off".

 

 

 

 

Compared to in the comics? Yeah. We don't know how much later but it can't be to much all things considered. Either way it's PHENOMINALLY short compared to the 18+ months of soul searching that it took the Man of Steel in the comics

 

[Rosbjerg]

Might not have had any control once it was licensed.

 

But there's no way the slow pace would translate to a film (would have to have been a series of some kind).

 

No way it could translate into a 170mill blockbuster you mean and of course not - but who said it had to? A sombre introspective film would've sufficed...Think "Monsters" only with 10mill budget instead of 800.000. I would've seen a movie like that at least twice in the cinema..

[Amentep]

 

Compared to in the comics? Yeah. We don't know how much later but it can't be to much all things considered. Either way it's PHENOMINALLY short compared to the 18+ months of soul searching that it took the Man of Steel in the comics

 

 

18+ months - is that in time the comics got published or the time the story actually took? because often times multiple issues of a comic happen in hours, and sometimes months.

 

Anyhow, I still think it works in the context of the film. You'd need a whole 'nother film to deal with it...like the sequel...

 

 

Rosbjerg - WWZ the novel - afaik - is world spanning and covers several months/years of time and loads of people. Sure they could have ripped it all apart and settled on a singular family but it'd have left as much to the side unfilmed as the current film does, as I understand it (I've never read WWZ, so my knowledge of it is entirely secondhand).

[Rosbjerg]

It's basically a guy travelling around on a personal mission (but technically for UN) to collect the spoken testimonies of selected survivors around the world. Telling their stories of how they survived, from South African officials who had to make really hard choices to geeks in Japan and a lot in between. In the mean time it both paints a picture of the world before, during and after the apocalypse - with a lot of social commentary underneath. The book is build around a series of interviews.. So it was disheartening to see it turned into this.

 

I think it would've made for a great sort of fake documentary..

[LadyCrimson]

Random quote from a review of the non-fiction book "Sleepless in Hollywood:"  (I have not read this book nor claim to agree with this book's conclusions about Hollywood)

It’s summer, you’d like to go to the movies, but you don’t want to see anything that’s a sequel, remake, or reboot, or that features a superhero. Which means you either live near an art house theater or you’re stuck on the couch with Netflix

 
Welcome to my current movie-life. It's especially difficult for me since I'm also not all that into Oscar-bait dramas or dramatic art-house films. But I watched a couple low-budget psych thriller/horror films (eg not gore-fests) from a couple years ago (The Corridor and YellowBrickRoad). Mind you, neither were awesome, or non-derivative, or even awesomely acted, but there was still something about them that was sorta creepy and compelling. A mood. Some might find them "too slow/boring" or ambiguous but maybe that was what I liked about them. 
 
The actors were unknown to me, the characters were unknown to me (even if they were obvious archetypes), and thus I was vaugely interested to see what trouble they got into.  It's not the same thing as caring about them, but it's more than I typically feel in the mega-success Hollywood stuff these days - where the most interest or emotion I feel is the "ooo" of the visual snazzery, whether sets or action.
 

Olympus Has Fallen.
 
A very silly film. Not in the comedic sense, but in that ridiculous action type of movie.

The one film reviewer that I still read with some regularity (I miss you, Ebert!!) liked that one better than White House Down. Which isn't to say he thought it stellar/awesome, just that it was a bit less mindless and did the scenario better than WHD. Which means I'll check it out when it comes to VoD. I think I'm going to skip White House Down...

[Raithe]

Evil Dead.

 

The remake. It's not bad actually. Definitely much a return to the original, not so pushing the zany humour side that followed after the original, and with it's own spin/take on the premise.

 

A group who are headed into the woods to help the friend / sister of one of the group detox from her drug habit.  Of course, said cabin turns out to have a certain book hidden in the basement, and the usual supernatural shenanigans occur.

[Raithe]

What annoys me is that Much Ado About Nothing was on at the cinema here for a week. Then it was off.   I'd planned to go see it, but didn't realise I had that limited a time to do it in.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Evil Dead.

 

The remake. It's not bad actually. Definitely much a return to the original, not so pushing the zany humour side that followed after the original, and with it's own spin/take on the premise.

 

A group who are headed into the woods to help the friend / sister of one of the group detox from her drug habit.  Of course, said cabin turns out to have a certain book hidden in the basement, and the usual supernatural shenanigans occur.

Was the "tree rapist" still there?

[Raithe]

 

Evil Dead.

 

The remake. It's not bad actually. Definitely much a return to the original, not so pushing the zany humour side that followed after the original, and with it's own spin/take on the premise.

 

A group who are headed into the woods to help the friend / sister of one of the group detox from her drug habit.  Of course, said cabin turns out to have a certain book hidden in the basement, and the usual supernatural shenanigans occur.

Was the "tree rapist" still there?

 

 

There was.. an encounter with some hedges and spindly bracken,  and a weird doppelganger kind of instance. But not exactly the "tree rapist".

[LadyCrimson]

I loved Evil Dead 2 but for some time I didn't bother watching the first version, since I heard it wasn't comedic. After hearing all about that tree scene, when I did finally buy/watch Evil Dead, my general feeling was "that's it? What's the big deal?" I mean, it's not a nice scene, but some made it out to be a lot worse than it is.

 

There's a scene in Re-Animater that's worse/creepier, imo.

[Labadal]

Watched the Cowboy Bebop movie and i really enjoyed it. The best anime show of all time in my opinion.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

Evil Dead.

 

The remake. It's not bad actually. Definitely much a return to the original, not so pushing the zany humour side that followed after the original, and with it's own spin/take on the premise.

 

A group who are headed into the woods to help the friend / sister of one of the group detox from her drug habit.  Of course, said cabin turns out to have a certain book hidden in the basement, and the usual supernatural shenanigans occur.

 

Was the "tree rapist" still there?

 

There was.. an encounter with some hedges and spindly bracken,  and a weird doppelganger kind of instance. But not exactly the "tree rapist".

Evil Dead in name only.

[Gorgon]

I loved Evil Dead 2 but for some time I didn't bother watching the first version, since I heard it wasn't comedic. After hearing all about that tree scene, when I did finally buy/watch Evil Dead, my general feeling was "that's it? What's the big deal?" I mean, it's not a nice scene, but some made it out to be a lot worse than it is.

 

There's a scene in Re-Animater that's worse/creepier, imo.

Evil Dead 2 is Evil Dead 1 made with more money. The remake suffers from a bad lack of Bruce Cambel, but I guess you don't get to reboot your own movie.

[Raithe]

 

I loved Evil Dead 2 but for some time I didn't bother watching the first version, since I heard it wasn't comedic. After hearing all about that tree scene, when I did finally buy/watch Evil Dead, my general feeling was "that's it? What's the big deal?" I mean, it's not a nice scene, but some made it out to be a lot worse than it is.

 

There's a scene in Re-Animater that's worse/creepier, imo.

Evil Dead 2 is Evil Dead 1 made with more money. The remake suffers from a bad lack of Bruce Cambel, but I guess you don't get to reboot your own movie.

 

 

Evil Dead 2 was Evil Dead 1 but with more money and a lot more humour twisted in.

And Bruce was one of the producers for the remake...

[Calax]

 

 

Compared to in the comics? Yeah. We don't know how much later but it can't be to much all things considered. Either way it's PHENOMINALLY short compared to the 18+ months of soul searching that it took the Man of Steel in the comics

 

 

18+ months - is that in time the comics got published or the time the story actually took? because often times multiple issues of a comic happen in hours, and sometimes months.

 

Anyhow, I still think it works in the context of the film. You'd need a whole 'nother film to deal with it...like the sequel...

 

 

That's comic time. It was long enough for Luthor to realize and try to set up his own super hero. And for an entire expose to run (Superman had set it out with his parents to send in parts every month or so) about intergang in the newspaper. And for people to notice Clark Kent is missing from the city and send investigators after him.

 

And yeah, with Superman you'd need to have an entire second film to deal with the killing.

 

[Oerwinde]

This is the End - Hilarious if you're into crude humor. Danny McBride was great.

 

Skyfall - Not as good as Casino Royale, and constantly talking about James being old 3 movies in isn't my idea of a good idea. Otherwise a solid film.

 

Bourne Legacy - Anticlimactic ending, but was done well enough that it didn't seem like it was only made to try to cash in on the bourne franchise.

 

Slammin Salmon - If you liked Beerfest or Super Troopers, its not as funny, but worth a watch.

[selenadeon987]

Last i have seen kisk ass movie and in lates section,i ha saw iron men 3...

[Amentep]

 

 

Evil Dead.

 

The remake. It's not bad actually. Definitely much a return to the original, not so pushing the zany humour side that followed after the original, and with it's own spin/take on the premise.

 

A group who are headed into the woods to help the friend / sister of one of the group detox from her drug habit.  Of course, said cabin turns out to have a certain book hidden in the basement, and the usual supernatural shenanigans occur.

Was the "tree rapist" still there?

 

 

There was.. an encounter with some hedges and spindly bracken,  and a weird doppelganger kind of instance. But not exactly the "tree rapist".

 

The tree root does the same thing in the remake as it did in the original in the version I saw.

 

I thought the re-make was good until the end, at which point IMO it falls apart entirely.

 

 

The dreaded demon the deadites are trying to summon is dispatched easier than any of the deadites were? WTF?

 

  

I loved Evil Dead 2 but for some time I didn't bother watching the first version, since I heard it wasn't comedic. After hearing all about that tree scene, when I did finally buy/watch Evil Dead, my general feeling was "that's it? What's the big deal?" I mean, it's not a nice scene, but some made it out to be a lot worse than it is.

 

There's a scene in Re-Animater that's worse/creepier, imo.

That Dr. Hill scene was a bit much, although so much of that film was out there I guess it shouldn't have been that surprising in context...