Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives

Message board

* FAQ    * Search   * Register   * Login 



Reply to topic  
Author Message Previous topic | Next topic
darkeningday
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:33 pm 
 

Under_Starmere wrote:
Weren't some of you guys talking about how Ronin was good? Watching it right now - it's one of the flattest heist-type films I've seen :lol: Acting and directing/writing are just awful.

Ok...maybe awful is a bit harsh. Glaringly mediocre.

EDIT: Finished. Man that was shite. What the hell is wrong with you people :lol: Just watched Heat again the other day, though... soooo much better.

What exactly did you find so execrable about it?

I'll admit that's it's been years since I last watched it but I recall liking most things about it; from the frigid atmosphere to the fucking perfect cast to the unique locations for a heist film (although it's much more than just a heist film) to the subtlety in the dialog and character interactions (like when De Niro tests Stellan's reflexes by dropping his coffee cup--totally a moment only David Mamet could have choreographed). About the only thing I didn't like was the heavy-handed stuff where they explain in ridiculous detail who the ronin were and how De Niro's character related to them; that was terrible, but I forgive it because the movie had a huge budget and American audiences sure loves them some explanations of ridiculously obvious stuff.

I am a pretty huge Mamet fan, though. I've read/watched pretty much everything he's ever done.
_________________
The Zone takes care of its own.

Top
 Profile  
volutetheswarth
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 1254
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:09 pm 
 

As a Mamet fan, what do you think of Heist, Spartan and Oleanna?

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: United States
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:23 pm 
 

Spartan is brilliant. The ending reveal with Kristen Bell was just astounding. I think it's an incredibly underrated film and I'm always quick to defend it.

Heist wasn't great. It was way better than The Score, but that says pretty much nothing as The Score was garbage. Both films existences were all but negated by the amazing Spanish thriller Nine Queens that pulled off everything either film wanted to do an entire year before they were released. I'd say Heist may be the least interesting thing Mamet has ever made.

I haven't seen the film version of Oleanna but I've acted in the play and written a handful of papers on it. The play is a masterwork but I'll be the first to admit that Mamet plays don't transition nearly as smoothly to the big screen as one would probably guess given his extensive background in Hollywood. I thought Glengarry Glen Ross worked way better on the stage than in the cinema; Edmond too (although I did like both films, especially Edmond).

I'm guessing you disliked all three? They're regularly referenced as some of Mamet's worst.
_________________
The Zone takes care of its own.

Top
 Profile  
volutetheswarth
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:37 pm
Posts: 1254
Location: Australia
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:31 am 
 

I disliked Oleanna, that much I'm certain of. The writer took a realistic yet elaborate situation and crammed it with his pre-determined judgement/ending regardless of whether it flowed correctly with the characters. I couldn't make it past half-way with Spartan due to shoddy dialogue, implausibility in gaining information and generally being uninteresting, it was like a euro-version of a Law and Order episode and I didn't care for any of the characters. I'm a fan of Val Kilmer but his performance was just off and robotic, Agent Coulson's appearance didn't help matters. I thought Heist was okay but forgettable which was typical of heist films during that brief surge in the early 00's. I didn't care for the characters and every reveal felt predictably expected.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9562
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:08 am 
 

DeathRiderDoom wrote:
though this may be taken the wrong way - it seems kinda like nothing more than a "chick flick" masquerading as a nuanced, subtle drama film.

Well, I watched Lost in Translation with my girlfriend and she hated it even more than I did, so make of that what you will.

darkeningday wrote:
Heist wasn't great. It was way better than The Score, but that says pretty much nothing as The Score was garbage. Both films existences were all but negated by the amazing Spanish thriller Nine Queens that pulled off everything either film wanted to do an entire year before they were released. I'd say Heist may be the least interesting thing Mamet has ever made.

I'd say Heist was a fair bit better than that. Not great, but occupying a comfortable middle ground between something more weighty, like The Usual Suspects, and something that's all style and no substance, like the Ocean's Eleven remake. The plot is riddled with a fairly clever but also fairly uninteresting and repetitive series of twists, but the real meat of the film comes from two things: the memorable performances of Gene Hackman, Danny DeVito, and a few others, and the hilarious, snappy dialog. "Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money!" So yeah, definitely not the definitive heist movie, but a solid entry.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
Vipunen
Metal newbie

Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:32 pm
Posts: 155
Location: Finland
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:58 am 
 

Enjoyed Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev and Stalker immensely when I watched them some years ago. Are his other efforts worth the time?

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Veteran

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 3663
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:08 am 
 

Vipunen wrote:
Enjoyed Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev and Stalker immensely when I watched them some years ago. Are his other efforts worth the time?


Yes. All of them.

FasterDisaster wrote:
Star Trek and Star Trek: Into Darkness are fucking stupid.


They are, aren't they? I'd take the dull, predictable Trek of 7-9 over the utter embarrassment of the last 2 films any day.

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 18788
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:20 am 
 

Into Darkness could have just been released in a white package saying nothing but "Generic Modern Movie."
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Species

Top
 Profile  
By_Inheritance
Metalhead

Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 8:38 am
Posts: 418
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:41 am 
 

Vipunen wrote:
Enjoyed Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev and Stalker immensely when I watched them some years ago. Are his other efforts worth the time?

He's one of the most consistently brilliant filmmakers. Solaris is a personally favourite of mine but you can't go wrong with him really.
_________________
Gods of War Extreme metal. New EP, free download! - http://godsofwar.bandcamp.com
Crypt Lurker Doom metal. Stream full EP - http://cryptlurker.bandcamp.com/

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Veteran

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 3663
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 8:59 pm 
 

Empyreal wrote:
Into Darkness could have just been released in a white package saying nothing but "Generic Modern Movie."


Yeah but that would do a disservice to other generic modern movies which were actually decent, like Cloud Atlas or even Avatar. Into Darkness was just awful in every way imaginable, pissing on everything that was good about Star Trek.

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 18788
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:05 pm 
 

Ah come now, Into Darkness was kinda bland and didn't have much exciting about it, but it wasn't a fucking Hallmark card made into a 3 hour movie like Cloud Atlas. :p
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Species

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Veteran

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 3663
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:45 pm 
 

But I like Hallmark cards. They have a point to them, respect their heritage, and they make sense. You would think Abrams could get at least one of those right.

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:24 pm 
 

I thought Star Trek '09 was the worst Trek film since the fifth, but what the hell was wrong with Into Darkness? I felt it did a great job of incorporating iconic moments from every Trek series--even the much-maligned Enterprise--into a convoluted but totally entertaining whole. A love-letter it was not, but a briskly paced, highly accessible sci-fi action film that didn't totally throw the existing fan base under the bus it absolutely was. Also, Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch turned in the best villain performances in the history of Star Trek, hands fucking down. Brilliant casting decisions.
_________________
The Zone takes care of its own.

Top
 Profile  
iamntbatman
Chaos Breed

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 7449
Location: Innsmouth
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:29 pm 
 

I agree with *most* of what darkeningday just said. My only real gripe with the movie is that Cumberbatch didn't really get enough screen time, and they could've done more to flesh out some sort of specific plan of his rather than "well he's an evil badass so if he gets his shit together he'll probably do...I dunno, some evil shit most likely." I liked the first one about as much, since a lot of the big setpiece scenes were a little better than Into Darkness but the villain was much shittier.
_________________
Lippyass Major wrote:
Getting a band inked into your skin permanently is always a sign of dedication and intelligence, and I have a lot of respect for the people who do it.


COMA VOID | GLOAMING | FAUSTIAN ORBS

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 18788
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:31 pm 
 

Cumberbatch did a great job acting, but I thought the character was incredibly boring and lame - really weak Hannibal Lecter-style "taunting from behind the wall" sort of thing at one point, then just an overly dramatic villain at others. He sold it quite well but I wasn't really grabbed by the writing or character there. The movie was solid overall, but I just think that was my thing with it...I was never grabbed or moved by it in any way. Just kinda average to me.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Species

Top
 Profile  
Metantoine
The XVI, dominar to over 258714 subjects

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 8617
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:36 pm 
 

Eric Bana was a really shitty bad guy, he was basically there because they needed one since the first movie is only about Kirk and Spock anyway. Into Darkness was pretty damn entertaining and comparing it to Avatar is making me nauseous. It's basically the best action sci fi movie you can have in 2013
_________________
Metantoine's Magickal Realm - Wings of Metal 2014 review
Last.fm
Halberd (doom/death)

Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 18788
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:39 pm 
 

Eric Bana is a shitty everything. And Tony, Pacific Rim came out this year, so Into Darkness can't be the best action/sci fi of the year. :p
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Species

Top
 Profile  
Metantoine
The XVI, dominar to over 258714 subjects

Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 5:00 pm
Posts: 8617
Location: Québec
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:40 pm 
 

Nah, Into Darkness has an actual plot, Emp.
_________________
Metantoine's Magickal Realm - Wings of Metal 2014 review
Last.fm
Halberd (doom/death)

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Veteran

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 3663
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:45 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
I thought Star Trek '09 was the worst Trek film since the fifth, but what the hell was wrong with Into Darkness? I felt it did a great job of incorporating iconic moments from every Trek series--even the much-maligned Enterprise--into a convoluted but totally entertaining whole. A love-letter it was not, but a briskly paced, highly accessible sci-fi action film that didn't totally throw the existing fan base under the bus it absolutely was. Also, Peter Weller and Benedict Cumberbatch turned in the best villain performances in the history of Star Trek, hands fucking down. Brilliant casting decisions.


The problem is, Trek isn't sci-fi action. It's supposed to be more than that. Into Darkness gives us fuck all insight into the politics, science and morality of the future, so it's not even sci-fi. Yeah, as an independent action film it's "solid" but it even fucks that up by muddling up a seemingly simple plot so that I couldn't even follow why things were happening. I only realised later that things were made to happen because they looked cool, like ornaments on a christmas tree, and I was stupid to try and make some sort of sense of the plot like the earlier Trek films asked us to do. Worst ST movie by far.

Also, no way is Cumberbatch's Khan better than Montalban's. But I can't blame the actor for that.


Last edited by Expedience on Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
Empyreal
The Final Frontier

Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:58 pm
Posts: 18788
Location: Where the dead rule the night
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:46 pm 
 

Metantoine wrote:
Nah, Into Darkness has an actual plot, Emp.


It has more plot, sure. But in terms of effectiveness as a film and impact left on me as an audience, I liked Pacific Rim better.

Rashomon - 5/5

An excellent film and a deserved classic. This tale of a murder told by four different people is pulled off with deliberate pacing and actors who sell their roles with aplomb and theatricality. The story is fairly simple - a man is found dead in the woods and people go to court to testify their versions of what happened. But it slowly unwinds and becomes more complex as each story, while sharing the same basic set-up, differs quite drastically. You see each character's version of the story and you learn about them as characters, what makes them tick and what their strengths and flaws and overall personalities are. It's quite a slow-burner and the full effect does not set in until you've seen all four stories, and some of the best scenes are actually not flashbacks, but the "wraparound" segments with the guys going over everything in the temple while it rains. The movie tells about humanity's tendency to bend the truth and lie to serve their own needs, and points out that nobody is really 100% right or wrong - each person's tale has elements of truth in it blended with elements of that person's particular fantasy or version of reality. As a film this is marvelously complete and well done. I was left feeling satisfied after it was over, and I wouldn't have liked it to be a minute shorter or longer than it was. For a character study and just a crime film, this is impeccable - highly recommended.
_________________
Cinema Freaks latest reviews: Species


Last edited by Empyreal on Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Top
 Profile  
iamntbatman
Chaos Breed

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 7449
Location: Innsmouth
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:48 pm 
 

Expedience, sorry, but John_Sunlight already beat you to the "worst Star Trek ever" Comic Book Guy-isms. Funny joke, though!
_________________
Lippyass Major wrote:
Getting a band inked into your skin permanently is always a sign of dedication and intelligence, and I have a lot of respect for the people who do it.


COMA VOID | GLOAMING | FAUSTIAN ORBS

Top
 Profile  
Zelkiiro
Pounding the world with a fish of steel

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 5:30 pm
Posts: 3999
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:52 pm 
 

Also, claiming something is superior because "it delves into politics and morality!" is entirely fallacious when you realize that shit like this does just that while being irredeemably terrible the entire time.
_________________
Anime Reviews every two weeks!
Artwork once or twice a year!
M-A reviews every leap year!
Last.fm all day long!

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:59 pm 
 

Oh for God's sake, all of the Next Generation films with the exception of Insurrection were pure, unadulterated fluff. Star Trek: First Contact, which is widely regarded as one of the best Star Trek films, is a single-note action film from stem to stern; Nemesis (which is correctly regarded as one of the worst) was as well. Star Trek: Generations was just an exercise in fan service; there was absolutely no insight into politics or science with only a very simplistic view of "human morality" even hinted at; the movie was about Picard and Kirk beating up Malcolm McDowell together and absolutely nothing more.

Regardless, Star Trek is and always will be better on the small screen (although The Undiscovered Country definitely did prove that they can make a damn good Trek movie.)
_________________
The Zone takes care of its own.

Top
 Profile  
iamntbatman
Chaos Breed

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:55 am
Posts: 7449
Location: Innsmouth
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:06 pm 
 

Oh, maybe I should contribute to the thread for once.

I saw Hell Baby earlier today. Basically it's Scary Movie-ish horror parody except done by the dudes behind Reno 911 so it was actually funny much of the time. Some of the jokes fell pretty flat but others were pretty funny (most of the scenes with the two Vatican priests were pretty good). There was also a really gratuitous nude scene with Riki Lindhome that just seemed regular gratuitous at first but actually got better as it went on because it was just so damn awkward. Also, Michael Ian Black.
_________________
Lippyass Major wrote:
Getting a band inked into your skin permanently is always a sign of dedication and intelligence, and I have a lot of respect for the people who do it.


COMA VOID | GLOAMING | FAUSTIAN ORBS

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Veteran

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 3663
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:18 pm 
 

darkeningday wrote:
Oh for God's sake, all of the Next Generation films with the exception of Insurrection were pure, unadulterated fluff. Star Trek: First Contact, which is widely regarded as one of the best Star Trek films, is a single-note action film from stem to stern; Nemesis (which is correctly regarded as one of the worst) was as well. Star Trek: Generations was just an exercise in fan service; there was absolutely no insight into politics or science with only a very simplistic view of "human morality" even hinted at; the movie was about Picard and Kirk beating up Malcolm McDowell together and absolutely nothing more.

Regardless, Star Trek is and always will be better on the small screen (although The Undiscovered Country definitely did prove that they can make a damn good Trek movie.)


The TNG films were fluff but they gave you something to consider, at least. I don't ask much of my Sci-fi: if it asks "what if?" and lets us think about it, I'm happy. So there was the Nexus at the centre of Generations, what if something like that existed and what would you do? Insurrection had the theme about interfering with developing civilizations. Those were questions I actually considered while watching, making the fluff watchable. Into Darkness didn't have any of that, it was just a mash-up of hyperactive babbling and fighting strategically designed that way to prevent any time for thought to materialize in the viewer's head.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9562
Location: United States
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:55 pm 
 

"What if?" is just one of many things sci-fi can be about. If you seriously can't enjoy sci-fi if it doesn't make you think about those questions, you're seriously limiting yourself.

darkeningday wrote:
I thought Star Trek '09 was the worst Trek film since the fifth

Have you actually sat through Star Trek: Nemesis? Star Trek '09 was brainless fluff, but it was entertaining and fast-paced. Nemesis was old actors trying and failing to make a movie like that, with utterly unnecessary grimdark bullshit thrown in there. Plus, it does it all with such ridiculous seriousness that I couldn't even enjoy it as a 'so bad it's good' movie. It was just painful.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:25 am 
 

I've seen every TNG film at least ten times... :oh shit:

While I liked Nemesis when I was 15 I definitely think it's pretty damn awful today; screenwriter John Logan is perennially horrible (with the exception of Rango, which I attribute more to Gore Verbinski) and action editor (and openly non-Trek fan) Stuart Baird was about as salient a directing choice as getting Jack Kevorkian to oversee your appendectomy. STILL, I thought it was better (if only just) than '09 because it's still the cast I grew up with and Tom Hardy = :love: . And I legitimately did like the verbal sparring between Picard and Fake Picard quite a bit. The action bits with the blurry slo-mo sections were definitely the low points of the Star Trek film series, though.

I think what's most interesting about both films is that '09 has a very fucking similar plot to Nemesis, which was an utterly bizarre creative choice for a reboot.
_________________
The Zone takes care of its own.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9562
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:26 am 
 

Right, but the thing is Nemesis focuses on its shitty, shitty plot, while in Star Trek '09 you can basically forget about it other than "there's some bad guy with a ship," and focus on the characters, the sets, the exciting direction, etc. I mean, I'll absolutely agree with you that it was dust off a dog turd compared to Star Trek 6, but as far as modern Treks go, '09 beats all the rest (except maybe Into Darkness, which I haven't seen yet). The TNG Treks were basically square-peg-round-hole x1000, trying to make these intellectual space pacifists into action heroes. Trek '09 is at least honest.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
darkeningday
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:20 pm
Posts: 1846
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 2:45 am 
 

I dunno man, the cop chase? The bar fight? Zoe Saldana's non-acting? Eric Bana's utterance of "Kirk" as a parody (reference?) to the iconic "Khhhhaaaaaannnn!" The fact it had FUCKING THOR in it???

All these things just kinda pushed it over the edge of tolerable for me. It's not even that I thought it was a bad Star Trek movie; I just found it a below-average buddy action movie, of which there are already enough to fill a landfill on Qo'noS. I mean yeah it had cool iPod architecture and flashy CGI, but the fight choreography was just barely above serviceable and there weren't really even any flashy space battles which was a damn shame for the kind of money they were working with. Into Darkness rectified most of these problems and transformed the bleh '09 blueprint into a pretty damn enjoyable popcorn flick. You should definitely see it and I hope you let us/me know what you think of it when you do.
_________________
The Zone takes care of its own.

Top
 Profile  
aaronmb666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:37 am
Posts: 1793
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:07 am 
 

I tried watching Lords of Salem and it only contributed to 2013 being a year of really shitty horror movies.
Also watched I spit on your grave 2 and while it's pretty much the same thing, the revenge kills were brutal.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9562
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:18 am 
 

darkeningday wrote:
I dunno man, the cop chase? The bar fight? Zoe Saldana's non-acting? Eric Bana's utterance of "Kirk" as a parody (reference?) to the iconic "Khhhhaaaaaannnn!" The fact it had FUCKING THOR in it???

Well sure, I could point out plenty of other faults too (like how utterly silly looking the big bad spaceship was - THAT is a mining vessel? REALLY? If they wanted to make it so ludicrously threatening, why didn't they just make it a warship from the get-go?) but again, my point wasn't so much about how good JJTrek was, but how bad Action TNG was. I seriously wish I could erase them from existence and just have the TNG crew's careers end with All Good Things, one of the greatest Trek 2-parters.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Veteran

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 3663
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:24 am 
 

failsafeman wrote:
"What if?" is just one of many things sci-fi can be about. If you seriously can't enjoy sci-fi if it doesn't make you think about those questions, you're seriously limiting yourself.


Educate me then. What else can sci-fi be about than the impact of future technology on our lives? If that's limited then so be it but at least it's not what Abrams thinks sci-fi is, which is funny looking aliens and cool looking ships and action action action.

Quote:
darkeningday wrote:
I thought Star Trek '09 was the worst Trek film since the fifth

Have you actually sat through Star Trek: Nemesis? Star Trek '09 was brainless fluff, but it was entertaining and fast-paced. Nemesis was old actors trying and failing to make a movie like that, with utterly unnecessary grimdark bullshit thrown in there. Plus, it does it all with such ridiculous seriousness that I couldn't even enjoy it as a 'so bad it's good' movie. It was just painful.


Totally agree. Trek 09 beats Nemesis, but it works only as a one-off prequel. Watch Into Darkness and then judge the reboot as a whole.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9562
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 7:54 am 
 

Expedience wrote:
failsafeman wrote:
"What if?" is just one of many things sci-fi can be about. If you seriously can't enjoy sci-fi if it doesn't make you think about those questions, you're seriously limiting yourself.

Educate me then. What else can sci-fi be about than the impact of future technology on our lives?

Seriously? Sci-fi is nearly always about us, here, now. Star Trek is only very rarely actually about future technology. The Undiscovered Country for example is about the end of the Cold War, and more generally about inter-ethnic and -national strife. What sci-fi often does is make subtler points about the core issues of real-world situations by dressing them up in costumes. The Federation and the Klingons have parallels to the US and the USSR, but they are also different in many ways as well, distancing the movie somewhat from their real-world counterparts. This technique softens the blow, and allows sci-fi to deal with often touchy issues in a way that doesn't make people put their guard up.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
Expedience
Veteran

Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:22 am
Posts: 3663
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:50 am 
 

But every movie ever made is about us, here, now. You can't use that to define sci-fi. The Undiscovered Country expands the scale of war to the intergalactic, enabled by technology, and gives us a glimpse of what you described would look like at that level. Of course we find it's not much different from our own circumstances, but that's what the best sci-fi always does: present a new technological possibility and use it to reflect back on relevant issues across various fields.

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
OMG WAT DOES THIS CAPS LOCK KEY DO

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 6341
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 11:44 am 
 

So, I saw No One Lives. That movie is violently and absurdly amazing.

Also, I saw Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning, which is strangely compelling? Like, it looks really professional and has some really great cinematography. There's a scene towards the beginning that looked like it could've dropped out of a super-stylish, hyper-violent eighties action movie, with some John Woo-esque camera work. The movie isn't a through and through action movie, but it's weirdly suspenseful and genuinely interesting in a lot of places. Also most of the action is super violent, though. The opening scene is pretty crazy.

I think I'm developing a strange fetish for ultra-violence in movies. I've always been a fan of super violence, but I feel like I'm not satiated with a movie unless somebody gets their face ripped off, or gets a limb blown off and the ensuing carnage is gallons of blood splattering. I'm still not a fan of tortuous violence. Never have been, really.
_________________
Abominatrix wrote:
No way, that sounds great...especially the asparagus. Mmmm yes indeed.

Top
 Profile  
Stone69
Metalhead

Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 2:58 am
Posts: 501
Location: Filipinas
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:24 pm 
 

Disconnect [2012] - 4.5/5 - A really great and inspiring movie about a certain group of people having human connections on today's internet controlled world. I don't really enjoy watching "DRAMA" films because they always make me drowsy but the dramatic mood on this film gave me a bit of excitement because the story was really good that it made myself thrilled to know what would happen next! Highly recommended!.

Top
 Profile  
failsafeman
Digital Dictator

Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:45 am
Posts: 9562
Location: United States
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:55 pm 
 

Expedience wrote:
But every movie ever made is about us, here, now.

Yeah no shit.

Expedience wrote:
You can't use that to define sci-fi.

I'm not. I'm saying that sci-fi is a subset of every movie ever made. The difference between sci-fi and regular movies is that, as I said before, when sci-fi addresses these issues, it does so through indirect representation rather than direct representation. Or not - Alien for example doesn't really deal with any technological or political or social issues, it's almost purely a "feeling" movie, and that's fine too.

Expedience wrote:
The Undiscovered Country expands the scale of war to the intergalactic, enabled by technology, and gives us a glimpse of what you described would look like at that level. Of course we find it's not much different from our own circumstances, but that's what the best sci-fi always does: present a new technological possibility and use it to reflect back on relevant issues across various fields.

The technology in the Undiscovered Country is almost entirely irrelevant to the plot - yes, there's the bit about the new cloaking device, but as far as the plot is concerned, it could have just as easily been plain ol' sabotage, or a traitor aboard the Enterprise, or anything.
_________________
antonthereaper wrote:
Seriously, why ban me??????? That topic had nothing wrong with it! Theres something wrong with you i can tell you! You're immoral banning of my account! Anyways, i'm creating my own metal arcives.

http://extrememetalencyclopedia.webs.com/

Top
 Profile  
Metal_Jaw
Metal newbie

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:57 pm
Posts: 205
Location: United States
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 1:06 am 
 

FasterDisaster wrote:
So, I saw No One Lives. That movie is violently and absurdly amazing.

Also, I saw Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning, which is strangely compelling? Like, it looks really professional and has some really great cinematography. There's a scene towards the beginning that looked like it could've dropped out of a super-stylish, hyper-violent eighties action movie, with some John Woo-esque camera work. The movie isn't a through and through action movie, but it's weirdly suspenseful and genuinely interesting in a lot of places. Also most of the action is super violent, though. The opening scene is pretty crazy.

I think I'm developing a strange fetish for ultra-violence in movies. I've always been a fan of super violence, but I feel like I'm not satiated with a movie unless somebody gets their face ripped off, or gets a limb blown off and the ensuing carnage is gallons of blood splattering. I'm still not a fan of tortuous violence. Never have been, really.


I hear ya; stuff like "torture porn" for example is pretty unessecary. But good ol' ultraviolence is good fun. Robocop, The Raid, The Punisher: War Zone ( hey, I enjoyed it!), Rambo IV...and yeah Day of Reckoning kicked ass too. The Unisol massacre at the end was awesome!

Top
 Profile  
FasterDisaster
OMG WAT DOES THIS CAPS LOCK KEY DO

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Posts: 6341
PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:34 pm 
 

Metal_Jaw wrote:
FasterDisaster wrote:
So, I saw No One Lives. That movie is violently and absurdly amazing.

Also, I saw Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning, which is strangely compelling? Like, it looks really professional and has some really great cinematography. There's a scene towards the beginning that looked like it could've dropped out of a super-stylish, hyper-violent eighties action movie, with some John Woo-esque camera work. The movie isn't a through and through action movie, but it's weirdly suspenseful and genuinely interesting in a lot of places. Also most of the action is super violent, though. The opening scene is pretty crazy.

I think I'm developing a strange fetish for ultra-violence in movies. I've always been a fan of super violence, but I feel like I'm not satiated with a movie unless somebody gets their face ripped off, or gets a limb blown off and the ensuing carnage is gallons of blood splattering. I'm still not a fan of tortuous violence. Never have been, really.

I hear ya; stuff like "torture porn" for example is pretty unessecary. But good ol' ultraviolence is good fun. Robocop, The Raid, The Punisher: War Zone ( hey, I enjoyed it!), Rambo IV...and yeah Day of Reckoning kicked ass too. The Unisol massacre at the end was awesome!

Oh man, I thought I was the only one who fucking loved Punisher: War Zone. And before somebody chimes in with, "you're the only two knuckleheads who did," kill yourself.
_________________
Abominatrix wrote:
No way, that sounds great...especially the asparagus. Mmmm yes indeed.

Top
 Profile  
aaronmb666
Metalhead

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 3:37 am
Posts: 1793
PostPosted: Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:01 am 
 

Also, I saw Universal Soldier: Day Of Reckoning, which is strangely compelling? Like, it looks really professional and has some really great cinematography. There's a scene towards the beginning that looked like it could've dropped out of a super-stylish, hyper-violent eighties action movie, with some John Woo-esque camera work. The movie isn't a through and through action movie, but it's weirdly suspenseful and genuinely interesting in a lot of places. Also most of the action is super violent, though. The opening scene is pretty crazy.

I think I'm developing a strange fetish for ultra-violence in movies. I've always been a fan of super violence, but I feel like I'm not satiated with a movie unless somebody gets their face ripped off, or gets a limb blown off and the ensuing carnage is gallons of blood splattering. I'm still not a fan of tortuous violence. Never have been, really.[/quote]
I hear ya; stuff like "torture porn" for example is pretty unessecary. But good ol' ultraviolence is good fun. Robocop, The Raid, The Punisher: War Zone ( hey, I enjoyed it!), Rambo IV...and yeah Day of Reckoning kicked ass too. The Unisol massacre at the end was awesome![/quote]
Oh man, I thought I was the only one who fucking loved Punisher: War Zone. And before somebody chimes in with, "you're the only two knuckleheads who did," kill yourself.[/quote]

I loved it too..hell, Ray Stephenson shouldve been an expendable.

Top
 Profile  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic Go to page Previous  1 ... 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434 ... 482  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cruciphage, marcomai, narsilianshard, OneSizeFitzpatrick and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

Back to the Encyclopaedia Metallum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group