EPTI thought they were reasonably faithful given what a difficult adaptation it was, I'm trying to imagine a snarkier version of Castaway with all of Whatney's quipping to himself but can't picture it. I think they could have used some of the fly by shots of him cruising around to discuss how difficult that was meant to be from the book though.
Movie Discussion! - Page 363
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
I thought they were reasonably faithful given what a difficult adaptation it was, I'm trying to imagine a snarkier version of Castaway with all of Whatney's quipping to himself but can't picture it. I think they could have used some of the fly by shots of him cruising around to discuss how difficult that was meant to be from the book though. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
Writing / acting was terrible of course but damn some scenes were more messed up than cannibal holocaust. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Director: Denis Villeneuve Cast: Emily Blunt (Kate), Benicio Del Toro (Alejandro), Josh Brolin (Matt), Daniel Kaluuya (Reggie) 122 Min, Thriller Well, let's get it going. First of all, I enjoyed the movie. It has some strengths but there alre also some weaknesses. I think the strengths are the pacing of the movie, although it could have been a few minutes shorter and Del Toros acting job who delivers the secretive and dangerous guy plausibly to the audience. The last 30 minutes, which are always important in Thrillers to deliver a good climax and find a credible conclusion, are well paced and executed. These are the most important pro points in my opinion. Now let's come to the weaknesses. I think the movie lacks "focus". It neither focusses on the drug war, hardly gives any backgrund, no when, why, how etc. it just gives us some small hints, but it doesn't focus on the characters either. The main character is the only one who gets desribed a little (good morals, driven in her job, determined). Her partner Reggie is completely useless and could be deleted from the script without any loss of quality. The audience doesn't get much from Alejandro's background either, we just get to hear which bad stuff happened to him, but we don't get a how, we don't get a frame of reference. Matt is just the cynical boss, we know that after the first 20 minutes, the character doesn't get any deeper than that. The adversary stays faceless until the very end. For a 2 hour film, I can expect a bit more character development. So the movie doesn't really examine the drug war and doesn't really develop it's characters either. It tried to do a bit of both and lacked in both areas, concentrating on one of the areas and do it right might have been the better choice here. Plot is straight forward and given the characters it becomes quite clear what is about the happen pretty fast. Kate is about to get done dirty and this is precisely how it plays out. The moral antagonism gets slightly touched but we don't get it in detail. We get some tears and then Kate just gets it over with. If I put other recent movies of the genre in comparison to Sicario (Let's have Nightcrawler and Drive), Sicario is a good bit worse than Nightcrawler and a tad bit weaker than Drive. The focus in Nightcrawler is clearly the main character and his ruthless way to success, supported by his equally ruthless boss. The film has a clear cut character driven focus and delivers on all fronts, we don't get a bit of this and a bit of that. Same in Drive, here the stars are the minimalism, the great soundtrack and the overall aesthetics. The main character even stays nameless to not withdraw focus from the main elements of the movie. Overall it was still an enjoyable movie. It delivered tense last 30 minutes with good action, a very good Benicio Del Toro and didn't produce lengths where you start losing focus. I will definately watch it again in the future and I can recommend it: 7.0 out of 10 points | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Director: Christopher McQuarrie Cast: Tom Cruise (Ethan), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa), Jeremy Renner (William), Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Sean Harris (Solomon). 130 Min, Action Finally got around watching this. I won't write too much on this one. Others have already written that the Action in the movie is well executed and well build up and I fully agree on that. The workmanship of the directing is absolutely solid and Tom Cruise is still a solid Ethan Hunt, he still is able to bring across the cold, calculating individual. Despite being relatively long, you don't realise the length, the structure is always slight buildup to the next action scene and repeat the formula. It's entertaining. Since it is already the x installment of the series, I have one big gripe with it: It totally lacks innovation. Plot is straight forward, nothing surprising on the character front, action scenes are solid but they hardly reinvent the wheel. It is just more of the same we already saw in other action flicks or in previous installments of the series. It doesn't move the Series as a whole forward for even one inch and is quite redundant to put it bluntly. I would recommend it for fans of the Series or for action fans in general, everybody else could skip it, it is above average but nothing you couldn't also watch in 10 different action movies over the year. Pros: Tom Cruise, solid action sequences and a solid build up of said sequences. Cons: redundant, totally devoid of innovation regarding the series characters, plot or action scenes. 6.5 out of 10 points | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Director: Alexander Bach Cast: Rupert Friend (47), Hannah Ware (Katia), Zachary Quinto (John). 96 Min, Action I could just say the flick is bad, don't watch it, but I will expand it a little. It is really hard to find something the film actually did well or above average, I guess the action could be described as relatively solid, but this is basically everything positive that can be said, oh and it is over quite fast. Here are my main points of critique: The cast is bad. Rupert Friend as 47 comes across as a tax accountant with a lack of haircut and not as a genetically superiour killing machine. Zachary Quinto is a bad antagonist, his acting job is just subpar. The plot: 47 searches for Katia who is genetically even more enhanced than he is and the natural born killer so to speak. The flick could have actually done something interesting here ala "nature vs nurture" what is more important? Didn't happen of course. Katia is utterly helpless at the beginning, just realizes that she is somehow different. The nature aspect seems to be non-existant and she is totally inferior to 47 who isn't "natured" that well but was nurtured and trained his whole life. This totally changes after a few training exercises with 47 and helpless and whiny Katia gets turned into quite the machine. Forget training your whole life, fighting against your clones, a hard selection process. Put some hours in with 47 and become badass. This 30 minutes in the flick totally turn the happenings in the games and the background infos we have around. It is so bad, it is nearly comical. Flick as a whole is definately below average I was actually annoyed after watching this Pros: short length, action atleast tolerable Cons: bad cast, bad acting, stupid plot. 2.5 out of 10 points | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
The Martian Both alright. | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Director: Scott Cooper Cast: Johnny Depp (Whitey Bulger), Joel Edgerton (Connely), Benedict Cumberbatch (Bill Bulger), Kevin Bacon (McGuire) 122 Min, Crime First of all, I have to give Johnny Depp some credit. I've seen him in such different roles over the decades from being Edward to Jack Sparrow to Charlie and now Whitey Bulger. Love him or hate him, he has achieved quite a remarkable career in Hollywood. His acting in Black Mass is remarkable, too. He carries the movie although Joel Edgerton's performance is very good as well. Acting performances and the "no nonsense" approach of the movie, regarding pacing and some drastic and intense scenes towards the end, are the two biggest strengths of the movie. Now let's come to the problems. First point is Johnny Depp's mask. It looks quite thick and takes nuances of his expression away. This is annoying, Whitey Bulger cannot change his expression much throughout the entire movie. Next point is the method the movie pushes the plot forward. We get scenes from some point in the future, where the now visibly older former gangmembers of Whitey are testifying against him, telling the prosecutors what the gang with Whitey on top did. This brings some problems. First it clarifies how the movie will end and that the gang will be caught. This is clear for anybody who googles "Whitey Bulger" before watching the movie. For people who just go to the cinema blindly to watch the new Johnny Depp flick it takes tension away. Second point, it brakes the rhythm of the movie. I think there could have been more elegant solutions. A voice over like in the genre classic Goodfellas or the main characters actions and motives could have been described from an antagonist's perspective like in American Gangster. This approach would have solved another one of the movies problems: The characters remain flat. We do not get Bulger's motivations nor his modus operandi, his business methods. We just get that he is a brutal and ruthless guy. I still remember the scene in Goodfellas where they strangle the poor guy with the phone cable until he losses his toupee to get money out of him. We don't get such "business" insides in Black Mass, it lacks immersion. Or the depth of characters in The Godfather. Black Mass is two or three steps behind in that regard The prosecutor scenes remain flat despite Edgerton's acting. The reason is that they are redundant. They always follow the same scheme. McGuire demands proof against the mafia and tells Connely what a sack of shit Bulger is, Connely tries to calm him down and deflect. Rinse and repeat. Explaining the main character through his antagonist's eyes, like suggested in the last paragraph, could have added a lot of depth to the prosecutor scenes, IMO. All in all, the flick was still enjoyable, it had a good no nonsense approach, towards the end it had drastic and intense scenes and Depp and Edgerton played their parts well. I will watch it again at some point in the future and I think it can be recommended for fans of Johnny Depp and people who like crime flicks in general. General film fans can watch it, but they shouldn't have high expectations. Pros: acting, no nonsense approach, some very good scenes Cons: Depp's mask, character development, method of plot development 6.5 out of 10 points | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17246 Posts
i don't want to give plot details because it will spoil the fun. Tatum O'Neal and Ryan O'Neal pull off scam after scam in 1936. This is Tatum O'Neal's first movie. Like most 9 year olds Tatum can cry on command. Interesting to see how the USA is portrayed during the darkest days of the great depression. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cJ1tk93.jpg) Great Movie 9/10 | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
Das Boot Director's Cut Director: Wolfgang Petersen Cast: Jürgen Prochnow (der Alte, Kapitän), Uwe Ochsenknecht ( Lamprecht), Martin Semmelrogge ( 2. Wachoffizier), Hubertus Bengsch (1. Wachoffizier), Herbert Grönemeyer (Werner), Heinz Hoenig (Hinrich), Erwin Leder (Johann das Gespenst) 208 Min, Warmovie First of all this movie is epic. It makes it into many "100 best films of all times" type of lists and it is surely one of the best warmovies around. Their are several versions of it, the original cinema version (1981, 143 Min). It centers around the action more and cuts out some of the character development. The Director's cut, on which I will focus, is from 1997 and gives us a better portrayal of the film's main characters than the original version, but leaves some development of minor characters out. The even longer TV version from 1985 (282 Min) also includes these. The Director's Cut is my favorite version of the film as it delivers the best compromise between length and character development without slowing down the plot too much. What are the strengths of this movie? First I have to mention the setting. Most of the film was shot in a replicated submarine, 10 feet wide and 150 feet long. The instruments are authentic. You can actually watch it and walk into the thing. It sits on the property of the Bavaria Film GmbH in Geiselgasteig, Germany. It was staged on a hydraulic platform to simulate waves and for location shots in the water smaller bpoats were used. The harbor scenes were directed in La Rochelle in actual bunkers from WWII. You just cannot have a more realistic and immersive setting. They went for the optimum and it played out beautifully. Next very strong point is the camera work. Space was very limited and yet we get great dynamic shots or shots that carry the emotions of the characters involved beautifully. The limited space was used in clever ways and you almost feel like you would actually be sitting in the boat with the rest of the crew. Next pro is the cast. Prochnow's performance is simply incredible. He plays the captain so well, he is the rock the crew leans onto even if the odds are stacked against them. He gets portrayed as a serious character who would rather be somewhere else but as he cannot change the situation he must do his job as good as he can to maximize the chances of survival for himself and his crew. Other characters have funnier or more anxious sides which their respective actors play well with only one minor exception which I will describe later. The point is we don't get cliche characters. We get an array of different types none of which is over the top brave or heroic. They come across as normal guys caught in a nightmarish situation trying to save their skin. The plot is straight forward despite the length of the film. In the buildups to the various climaxes of the movie we get tidbits of information regarding the different characters so the viewer stays engaged, there is the one or other length throughout the movie. I guess Peterson wanted to show the boring side of being alone on the sea without seeing ships for days or even weeks. But compared to the movie's length this is a minor point of critique. The climaxes itself are well directed and very gritty, they come across as "realistic", the audience feels the terror of the crew. We don't get corny or cheesy heroics by super brave supersoldiers who basically turn the war effort around on their own like we see in many Hollywood productions (shoutout to Saving Private Ryan). All in all, the setting, the cast, the music and the camera work just create an unparalleled athmosphere. You get immersed into the crew's story. You feel the claustrophobia in the metallic coffin when the allied destroyers try to get them with depth charges, the tension in action sequences is unrivalled in the genre. In pure terms of the athmosphere only Apocalypse Now comes even close in some of its scenes, mainly when the main protagonist is a hostage in Col. Kurtz camp when he experiences the madness and the horror around him. Genre related you probably cannot make a bigger compliment to a movie. Regarding the weaknesses: I see three minor ones. The first one is Gröemeyer's acting. It is ok in most of the scenes but in the high tension scenes his facial expression seems to be a bit monotonous. He is mainly a singer, not an actor. Nevertheless "his" Werner is ok most of the times. Next minor point are some of the visuals. Mainly the shots through the periscope. I think they could have done a better job to imply movement and waves around them than they did. And the last point, there are some minor lengths in it. This probably is hard to avoid in a movie which goes 3 1/2 hours but I feel that Peterson could have cut out some of the "observing the sea" scenes without a loss of quality. I highly recommend this movie to everybody who is interested in films. It is a cinematic milestone regarding immersion and athmosphere. If you are casually interested in films I still recommend it, for Prochnow's acting alone. You shouldn' t let the runtime of 208 minutes discourage you from experiencing this movie. Probably shouldn't be the flick you watch with your hopefully soon to be girlfriend on your first date but if you have some hours to spare and can get your hand on the movie, you should go for it. I you should watch it with english subtitles, if you are not a native speaker. There is also a dubbed version, but I was told by native english speakers that it breaks some of the immersion while they basically forgot the subtitles after they were 10 minutes in the film. It was much more immersive and natural that way. Pro: setting, cast, character development, music, immersion and athmosphere Cons: Grönemeyer's performance slips in some scenes, minor lengths, visuals in some scenes. 9 out of 10 points | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
In the movie the submarine meets another one randomly in the Atlantic. This actually happened ( U 96 met U 572) the photo Buchheim made during the meeting became the cover of Time Life's series Battle of the Atlantic in 1977. The patrol in the movie resembles U 96's seventh patrol in the Atlantic. They didn't start in La Rochelle, like in the movie, but in St. Nazaire. All in all U 96 and it's captain made it through eleven tours and most crew members survived the war (out ouf 40 000 men on submarines, less than 10 000 survived, living through 11 tours is a ridicolous feature). The emblem on U 96 was indeed a laughing sawfish. The movie's captain is based on Heinrich Lehmann- Willenbrock who was often found on the set to speak with Prochnow about the life on a WWII submarine. Prochnow later said that Willenbrocks inside knowledge helped him enormously with his performance. The guy depicted as a Nazi in the movie was indeed one, ironically born and raised in Mexico, his name was Gerhard Groth. Bengsch (playing Groth) and Semmelrogge (playing Hermann) were probably casted because they looked like the 1. and 2. Wachoffizier on the U 96. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Seems a lot of people get sidetracked on the Turing test aspects, when the movie is more of an AI-Box experiment (which was somewhat obvious the moment the sealed room Ava is in is shown). Fun movie if you're a fan of Asimov-like Sci-Fi. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17246 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
I thought "wtf Sci-Fi is truly stuck on the AI. Nothing new since ever." Then The Martian comes and gives me some fun and hope for the genre :D Not the greatest film but I'll take it. Oh and Interstellar is a great one too. Nothing too new but I loved it. Extremely different from The Martian of course  (more serious and deep). | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On November 02 2015 15:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: After watching teh World Series and enjoying that.. and having taken in Tatum O'Neal's 1st movie , Paper Moon, I think i'll continue forward in her career and examine her next movie. "The Bad News Bears". It is supposed to be a good baseball movie. Original or the remake? | ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On November 02 2015 20:05 Salteador Neo wrote: I saw Ex-Machina and was truly disappointed. Everything is extremely predictable and already seen/written so many times before. I thought "wtf Sci-Fi is truly stuck on the AI. Nothing new since ever." Then The Martian comes and gives me some fun and hope for the genre :D Not the greatest film but I'll take it. Oh and Interstellar is a great one too. Nothing too new but I loved it. Extremely different from The Martian of course (more serious and deep).You seem to like the genre. Don't know if you already know the following flicks, but they are all ok, good to very good Science Fiction flicks, perhaps you are interested in some of them: Videodrome (1983) Scanners (1981) ExistenZ (1999) K Pax (2001) The Thing (1982) Children of Men (2006) Blade Runner (1982) 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) 2010: The Year We mace Contact (1984) The Quiet Earth (1985) They Live! (1988) Escape from New York (1981) Sunshine (2007) Brazil (1985) The Man from Earth (2007) Dark City (1998) Matrix (1999) Alien (1979) Moon (2009) Outland (1981) Source Code (2011) Pi (1998) District 9 (2009) You probably saw most of them but perhaps you'll find something you didn't watch yet in the list. | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
On November 03 2015 04:58 WarSame wrote: The Thing was a very fun watch. It's clearly an 80s film, from the effects to the the plot to the atmosphere of the film, but it holds up pretty well despite it. It doesn't go in for those "grim, sewer hole future city" looks that a lot of other 80s films did. It's pretty clean looking. Regarding Hollywood, the 80's are an ATG decade. It brought us Action series, that they try to milk to this day with mostly worse remakes (Die Hard, Rambo, Terminator, Mad Max, Lethal Weapon). It brought us all the other Arnie action flicks (Predator, Commando, Running Man)+ some other action flicks (RoboCop) Probably the best decade for Horror: The Fog, Hellraiser, Poltergeist, The Evil Dead, Shining, The Nightmare Series and a myriad of others Many great Science fiction flicks, some of the best war movies around with Platoon and Apocalypse Now (ok 1979 but still), The Killing Fields. The 80's absolutely wreck this and the last decade moviewise. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On November 03 2015 04:58 WarSame wrote: The Thing was a very fun watch. It's clearly an 80s film, from the effects to the the plot to the atmosphere of the film, but it holds up pretty well despite it. It doesn't go in for those "grim, sewer hole future city" looks that a lot of other 80s films did. It's pretty clean looking. Mac's hat is the real star of The Thing. You should see the original, I think it is PD now, | ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
| ||
| ||
