movies

Put the world to rights here (off-topic discussion)
User avatar
AnnihiSlateR
Denim Demon
Posts: 18671
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:52 am
Location: Leigh
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby AnnihiSlateR » Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:14 pm

Just watched Cloud Atlas again, just as impressive as the first time, and a lot easier to follow this time round I felt. Though reading the book obviously helps, I think a lot of the transitions made more sense this time round as I was able to see the bigger picture this time, as I wasn't as focussed on story if that makes sense. Though reading my last review I posted when I saw it in the cinema, the things I criticised then didn't seem to bother me this time round which is good.
The Inner Tent is Not Flame Retardant!
http://www.last.fm/user/annihislater18

User avatar
Darkweasel
Denim Demon
Posts: 14551
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Shakespeare Cuntry
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Darkweasel » Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:22 pm

Fuck Cloud Atlas in its pretentious arse.

I give you a....





Big Ass Spider!
Image

User avatar
AnnihiSlateR
Denim Demon
Posts: 18671
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:52 am
Location: Leigh
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby AnnihiSlateR » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:14 pm

Cloud Atlas is only seems pretentious if you don't get it. It's certainly ambitious, and has a reputation for being so, but I think it's deserved. Intertwining 6 stories the way it did took some doing. I almost felt that in terms of the intertwining narratives it worked better than the book.

In the book it's just a sort of arch structure, each story has half at the front, and then after half way it goes back in reverse order and finishes the stories. But with the film they were able to have scenes where someone would say something in one time period and something relevant would happen in another time period, or something will happen in one time, and it'll be mirrored straight away by something happening in another. I was thinking to myself how impressive it was that you could skip thousands of years between two scenes, and yet it didn't feel to me to be odd at all, it flowed and made perfect sense. I think having read the book, and having seen the film twice helped with my appreciation of it.

this afternoon I watched Fast Girls, it's a typical feel good, under dog achieving, triumph over adversity, coming of age, sports drama sort of film. Quite predictable at times, and I think very much a cash in on the whole London 2012 team GB vibe that was going on. Sometimes I can be quite cynical, but in this case I didn't mind it, and actually quite enjoyed it.
The Inner Tent is Not Flame Retardant!
http://www.last.fm/user/annihislater18

User avatar
Jobdone
Denim Demon
Posts: 15679
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:37 am
Location: Tiny Village, Wales

Re: movies

Postby Jobdone » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:17 pm

AnnihiSlateR wrote:Cloud Atlas is only seems pretentious if you don't get it.


I get your point, but that comes across pretty pretentious :lol:
Image

User avatar
AnnihiSlateR
Denim Demon
Posts: 18671
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:52 am
Location: Leigh
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby AnnihiSlateR » Wed Sep 25, 2013 1:19 pm

:lol: don't worry, the irony wasn't lost on me :P
The Inner Tent is Not Flame Retardant!
http://www.last.fm/user/annihislater18

User avatar
Darkweasel
Denim Demon
Posts: 14551
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Shakespeare Cuntry
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Darkweasel » Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:41 pm

Cloud Atlas is a great example of how to deliberately over-complicate a simple story and fool people into thinking it's actually really clever.
See also: Inception.
Image

User avatar
AnnihiSlateR
Denim Demon
Posts: 18671
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:52 am
Location: Leigh
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby AnnihiSlateR » Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:15 pm

What simple story would that be?
It's 6 separate stories, that are all linked both in terms of plot, but also with themes that supposedly exist and recur across space and time.
Sonmi summs it up in her speech; "Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb, we are bound to others. Past and present. And by each crime and every kindness, we birth our future." That is what the film is about.

Also when Isaac Sachs says "Belief, like fear or love, is a force to be understood as we understand the Theory of Relativity and Principles of Uncertainty: phenomenon that determine the course of our lives. Yesterday, my life was headed in one direction. Today, it is headed in another. Yesterday I believed that I would never have done what I did today. These forces that often remake time and space, that can shape and alter who we imagine ourselves to be, begin long before we are born and continue after we perish. Our lives and our choices, like quantum trajectories, are understood moment to moment. At each point of intersection, each encounter suggests a new potential direction. "

That's the basic premise of the book, actions and consequences throughout time. It's an adaptation of a book, it's not like they just chose to write the film that way. There's no simple story.

Also I don't see what was overly complicated about inception either. I didn't find it that hard to follow. I felt uncertainty at times, but I think that's deliberate.
The Inner Tent is Not Flame Retardant!
http://www.last.fm/user/annihislater18

User avatar
Darkweasel
Denim Demon
Posts: 14551
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Shakespeare Cuntry
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Darkweasel » Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:25 pm

AnnihiSlateR wrote:What simple story would that be?

Small actions create big ripples.

Three. Hours.




Three.
















CURSE OF CHUCKY

Mostly rubbish.
It says something that the best part of the film is the two minute post-credits sequence at the end.
Still better than Seed... though.
3/10
Image

User avatar
AnnihiSlateR
Denim Demon
Posts: 18671
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 8:52 am
Location: Leigh
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby AnnihiSlateR » Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:41 am

I think that's missing some of the point there. It's not merely that, there's a lot of intricacies that reducing it to that over looks. As for the run time, think of it as six half hour films that are intertwined. There's a major plot point in every book that gets missed out, or truncated, so it could have been much longer. I feel they get the time right to do justice to each story and give a sense of connection. There's not an awful lot more they could take out before the story suffers.
The Inner Tent is Not Flame Retardant!
http://www.last.fm/user/annihislater18

bloodfiend
Denim Demon
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:30 pm

Re: movies

Postby bloodfiend » Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:58 am

Darkweasel wrote:
CURSE OF CHUCKY

Mostly rubbish.
It says something that the best part of the film is the two minute post-credits sequence at the end.
Still better than Seed... though.
3/10


Really? I loved it, they've made it scary horror again rather than the crappy comedy direction it was going in, wiped the floor with both Bride and Seed, and as good as the early ones, great mix of horror and laughs, I'd give it 8/10

I see RIPD's being discussed, that was utter wank though, unfunny MIB rip off for 8 year olds, 2/10

User avatar
Jobdone
Denim Demon
Posts: 15679
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:37 am
Location: Tiny Village, Wales

Re: movies

Postby Jobdone » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:13 am

Thank god bloodfiend.

That movie is awful, and it's so confusing. I feel like I've gone to war and come back with PTSD and everyone else is like "Sure was a good bit of summer fun that conflict"
Image

bloodfiend
Denim Demon
Posts: 3321
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 7:30 pm

Re: movies

Postby bloodfiend » Thu Sep 26, 2013 8:51 am

I dunno who thought it would be a good idea to blow $130m on ripping off Ghostbusters and MIB in the shittest way possible, it's so crappily made as well - full of unrelated moments that make no sense (what has the ghosts being allergic to curry got to do with anything?), despite how much it cost the CGI is dated and cheap, and the humour is for retards who read Maxim and FHM (hur hur the new guy turns into an old chinese man and the old sherriff is a big titted chick....that's so funny we need to show it at least 5 times).

With summer movies now like The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises, did anyone seriously expect this piece of shit to be a success? It's nice to know people have sense though, as the critics have slaughtered it, and it's going to be a huge box office bomb.

I think my 2/10 was actually very generous.

User avatar
kaosweaver20
Consort of the Beast
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Yeovil, Somerset, UK

Re: movies

Postby kaosweaver20 » Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:58 pm

I watched Ballistic: Ecks Vs Sever last night. It was truly dreadful. Banderas tried his best to take is seriously, bless him, but it wasn't to be. :lol:
Image

Come with me and you will see, our future in debris. First the sun and now the stars are fading

User avatar
Darkweasel
Denim Demon
Posts: 14551
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: Shakespeare Cuntry
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Darkweasel » Thu Sep 26, 2013 3:45 pm

bloodfiend wrote:
Darkweasel wrote:
CURSE OF CHUCKY

Mostly rubbish.
It says something that the best part of the film is the two minute post-credits sequence at the end.
Still better than Seed... though.
3/10


Really? I loved it, they've made it scary horror again rather than the crappy comedy direction it was going in, wiped the floor with both Bride and Seed, and as good as the early ones, great mix of horror and laughs, I'd give it 8/10


Okay, to be fair, it does have some good points. It at least tries to be scary this time, keeping the humour down to the absolute minimum. It's nice and dark, and they also use some brief music cues from the original, as well as giving us a fully fledged flashback.
The ideas were there, just lacking in their execution.

All the characters (Brad Dourif's own daughter among them) were just run-of-the-mill kill fodder as per usual, but at least there were lesbians, and a couple of others had links to the Charles Lee Ray character.

However, the design for Chucky's face this time was appalling. He even looks like a girl in some shots.
Image

User avatar
Applecore
Denim Demon
Posts: 9555
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:01 pm
Location: Parts Unknown
Contact:

Re: movies

Postby Applecore » Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:21 pm

I think they tried to make Chucky look a bit too human, personally. In fact, Chucky's face (up until the scars were revealed) was probably the only bit I didn't like about the film.
I get that they wanted to do a CGI face so they could manipulate it more/not have to fuck about with puppets because they're idiots, but they could have at least tried to make it look like Chucky.
I mean this just doesn't look like him:
Image
However... (shrunk to avoid spoilers)
I guess Tiffany just "fixed up" Chucky, and in doing so probably gave him a bit of a makeover (re-plugged hair, etc). But it still seems like a really shit effort from the CGI team.
That said, I did like how in some shots it was clearly a midget.
Buy me a beer at:
8-11/8 - Bloodstock