I watched Mission Impossible 4 last night (decent, but very 'slick' in a way that wasn't always in its favour. Very polished and by-the-numbers, crossing things of a list-style film making at times) and realized that I'm not really that crazy about Jeremy Renner. I don't remember what I thought about him in The Hurt Locker, but otherwise he has been decent but utterly unremarkable. Or is it just me?
This post was sponsored by Tom Cruise.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Gigli is nowhere nearly as awful as Southland Tales.
Gigli is a bad pot-roast.
Southland Tales is a pot-roast that comes alive halfway through your dinner and sodomizes you while beating you with a coatrack, singing "Mandy" by Barry Manilow at the top of its non-existent lungs.
I watched Mission Impossible 4 last night (decent, but very 'slick' in a way that wasn't always in its favour. Very polished and by-the-numbers, crossing things of a list-style film making at times) and realized that I'm not really that crazy about Jeremy Renner. I don't remember what I thought about him in The Hurt Locker, but otherwise he has been decent but utterly unremarkable. Or is it just me?
He seems grumpy that he's making a movie, all the time. Like the roommate you have to coax to get to go to a bar on a Friday night, but all they do is sit in a booth and nurse a beer, ignoring all the fun going on around them, then once you're back at your apartment they complain they had a terrible time and they're never going out again.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I watched Mission Impossible 4 last night (decent, but very 'slick' in a way that wasn't always in its favour. Very polished and by-the-numbers, crossing things of a list-style film making at times) and realized that I'm not really that crazy about Jeremy Renner. I don't remember what I thought about him in The Hurt Locker, but otherwise he has been decent but utterly unremarkable. Or is it just me?
He seems grumpy that he's making a movie, all the time. Like the roommate you have to coax to get to go to a bar on a Friday night, but all they do is sit in a booth and nurse a beer, ignoring all the fun going on around them, then once you're back at your apartment they complain they had a terrible time and they're never going out again.
He's definitely got that whole butt-hurt white trash energy going on. He's a nice enough guy it seems, but I just don't see him becoming the AAA leading man that so many studios want him to be.
We had ourselves another Criterion night yesterday, with the b&w Titanic film A Night to Remember. It's a testament to the filmmaking how well this holds up with its old-school SFX - you'd think that it's weakened by the sinking of the Titanic being done much less sophisticatedly than in Cameron's movie, but it doesn't hurt the film at all. Poignant, exciting, harrowing... In so many ways it feels like the extremely British version to Cameron's Hollywood extravaganza.
This film is THE Titanic film in my opinion. I first caught the last ten minutes or so when it was on TCM from the part with the woman talking to Mr. Andrews to the people on board singing Nearer My God to Thee as it sunk and it got tears out of me all right.
I watched Mission Impossible 4 last night (decent, but very 'slick' in a way that wasn't always in its favour. Very polished and by-the-numbers, crossing things of a list-style film making at times) and realized that I'm not really that crazy about Jeremy Renner. I don't remember what I thought about him in The Hurt Locker, but otherwise he has been decent but utterly unremarkable. Or is it just me?
He seems grumpy that he's making a movie, all the time. Like the roommate you have to coax to get to go to a bar on a Friday night, but all they do is sit in a booth and nurse a beer, ignoring all the fun going on around them, then once you're back at your apartment they complain they had a terrible time and they're never going out again.
He's definitely got that whole butt-hurt white trash energy going on. He's a nice enough guy it seems, but I just don't see him becoming the AAA leading man that so many studios want him to be.
Yeah, I don't really get the push to make him a leading man. The idea, which I think has been dropped, of having him take Cruise's place seemed pretty foolish. I'm not really sure he makes a good Matt Damon replacement either, but that type of movie will suit him better.
I watched Mission Impossible 4 last night (decent, but very 'slick' in a way that wasn't always in its favour. Very polished and by-the-numbers, crossing things of a list-style film making at times) and realized that I'm not really that crazy about Jeremy Renner. I don't remember what I thought about him in The Hurt Locker, but otherwise he has been decent but utterly unremarkable. Or is it just me?
He seems grumpy that he's making a movie, all the time. Like the roommate you have to coax to get to go to a bar on a Friday night, but all they do is sit in a booth and nurse a beer, ignoring all the fun going on around them, then once you're back at your apartment they complain they had a terrible time and they're never going out again.
He's definitely got that whole butt-hurt white trash energy going on. He's a nice enough guy it seems, but I just don't see him becoming the AAA leading man that so many studios want him to be.
Yeah, I don't really get the push to make him a leading man. The idea, which I think has been dropped, of having him take Cruise's place seemed pretty foolish. I'm not really sure he makes a good Matt Damon replacement either, but that type of movie will suit him better.
I'd prefer him being the new Ethan Hunt or replacement for Ethan Hunt over Cruise in Mission: Impossible. Renner looks like he's been through some terrible shit kinda like Craig's James Bond, Cruise never appears to be in any danger with his movies.
i kinda enjoyed snow white and the huntsman, mainly due to the insane casting of british actors for the dwarfs, i mean fucking bob hoskins looked like he was smoking crack through the whole production, and then you've got ray fucking winstone, nick frost, eddie marsen, ian mcshane and others.. i hear they wanted to get sean connery for one of the dwarfs too, damn that would of been something.
I saw Prometheus.... it's 75% of a decent to good movie with one giant flaw that becomes increasingly difficult to ignore as the movie progresses:
(mild and unspecific spoiler)
The crew is a bunch of idiots on the least scientific mission possible.
This really hurts immersion. Otherwise it's well shot, decent actors, Fassbenderbot is great, 3D wasn't terrible. But the thing is, the movie really didn't need the above flaw:
(detailed spoilers)
There is a ton of potential conflict anyway. The robot who has to serve his master, the hidden away Weyland, but also perhaps tries to plot in immense power for himself, and the possible annihilation of the human species to begin with. The fanatic and dieing master pushing the expedition to ridicilous risks, since for him the risk doesn't exist. The daughter trying to save the company. The crew finding itself way out of its league (they have 1 person with weapon training) and the discovery of the super powerful Aliens, who can break their suits, and either choose to instakill or infect and destroy from within. The Engineers who wish to destroy humankind instead of save them, an excellent late movie twist.
But the entire time the humans are just... retarded. They don't record what's being sent apparently, if you aren't in the room noone knows. They don't watch what other people are doing at all, letting David do all sorts of crazy stuff in plain sight (they call him on it once, and then it gets ignored again from there on), the guy who designed the automapping robots (which were cool) gets lost because apparently his 21st century full HUD spacesuit doesn't display the map he just created, they don't realize the alien life form is deadly after witnessing both Engineers dieing in 3D holovision and a pile of Engineers corpses, the list just goes on and on.
I watched it with some of my pnp D&D pals, and during the interval we basicly decided that they acted entirely like a D&D party: 1 person thinks something is a good idea and others either don't pay attention or want to see the hilarity that ensues.
So are we basically talking shit on Jeremy Renner because he looks and behaves like a real person? Come on.
0
Options
JacobkoshGamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderatormod
Check out Renner in SWAT. He plays a really manic, energetic dude and does it well.
But then he was in The Hurt Locker and went from occasional supporting actor in ensemble movies to the star of an Oscar-winning film in the space of a single performance, one where he played a dude whose main qualities were being grouchy and intense. It wouldn't surprise me if a) people have been casting him because they saw Hurt Locker and said "get me a grouchy, intense guy like that" or b) that he's chosen to deliver more performances in that vein because it's what made his career.
you guys need to see national lampoons senior trip, renner (who has not aged a day) as a high school stoner lead looking to shag the intellectual chick.
there's also a crazy star trek obsessed traffic warden.
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
edited June 2012
I just saw Snow White and the Huntsman.
It's you pretty standard 'by the numbers' fantasy flick. I like how they actually took the time to make the evil queen something more then 'she's evil because fuck you, that's why'.
Though, what really bugged is the length scale of this movie.
How can *mild spoilers*
William travel from one castle to the other in what appears to be a day. Then, in a later scene, you have the characters trekking for like 4 days to go a shorter distance then what William did earlier. Then later on, you have a freaking army make the same trip in the morning and have time to invade a castle in the afternoon?
At one point of the movie I have to ask out loud 'Where the fuck are they going?' when Snow White is just randomly trekking through the mountains and ends up in forest cover in snow.
Other then that......I rather had watched 'Dictator'.
So are we basically talking shit on Jeremy Renner because he looks and behaves like a real person? Come on.
FedEx dropping off a dining room table at my house is a less wooden delivery than Jeremy Renner has. His acting range varies from smirking scowl to scowling smirk. He has the brooding, quiet intensity down, but that's all he has. He perpetually looks like he just smelled a fart.
MI4 was a bit of a failure in my eyes purely because the villain, his motives, and his plan are dumped on us near the beginning of the film (in an explanation of perhaps one scene). The audience is then left to take it all at face value and then sit as Tom Cruise drags his team around the world to stop him.
The guy is not nearly as threatening as the villain in MI3
Headhunters ran for 1hr 38min, but it still could have lost a bit of that. It's a mostly well thought-out thriller, but too eager to hold my hand, track back, and make sure I'm always on board. Which it doesn't really need to do. Also, Coster-Waldau is one charismatic dude. That face is really working out for him.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
MI4 was a bit of a failure in my eyes purely because the villain, his motives, and his plan are dumped on us near the beginning of the film (in an explanation of perhaps one scene). The audience is then left to take it all at face value and then sit as Tom Cruise drags his team around the world to stop him.
The guy is not nearly as threatening as the villain in MI3
Well, Philip Seymour Hoffman is hard to beat.
Also, saw MIB3. Fun little flick.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Headhunters ran for 1hr 38min, but it still could have lost a bit of that. It's a mostly well thought-out thriller, but too eager to hold my hand, track back, and make sure I'm always on board. Which it doesn't really need to do. Also, Coster-Waldau is one charismatic dude. That face is really working out for him.
Yeah, it could have trimmed a tiny bit. The last third gets a little muddied but it's not so bad. I'd say it's kind of borderline with the hand-holding - I mean honestly I didn't see the reveal coming and they went through it well enough.
MI4 was a bit of a failure in my eyes purely because the villain, his motives, and his plan are dumped on us near the beginning of the film (in an explanation of perhaps one scene). The audience is then left to take it all at face value and then sit as Tom Cruise drags his team around the world to stop him.
The guy is not nearly as threatening as the villain in MI3
Yes. The fact that the villain is so impersonal and faceless, not to mention off-screen most of the film, completely undercuts the stakes of the film.
It really comes out looking like little more that a pretext to show Tom Cruise running away from things.
FedEx dropping off a dining room table at my house is a less wooden delivery than Jeremy Renner has.
oh damn
That is one King Hell of a line right there. I don't agree with it, but I am impressed by it.
Renner has been putting off what reads to me as a sort of rough intensity. Definitely not leading man stuff, but something that gives a riveting neurosis appeal, not unlike early Walken stuff. That is about as far as I'm willing to take that comparison, but Renner reads to me like a guy who will do brilliant support work and may become one of those guys who can pull impressive performances out of slightly above-average costars just by being in the room with them.
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I saw Prometheus.... it's 75% of a decent to good movie with one giant flaw that becomes increasingly difficult to ignore as the movie progresses:
(mild and unspecific spoiler)
The crew is a bunch of idiots on the least scientific mission possible.
This really hurts immersion. Otherwise it's well shot, decent actors, Fassbenderbot is great, 3D wasn't terrible. But the thing is, the movie really didn't need the above flaw:
(detailed spoilers)
There is a ton of potential conflict anyway. The robot who has to serve his master, the hidden away Weyland, but also perhaps tries to plot in immense power for himself, and the possible annihilation of the human species to begin with. The fanatic and dieing master pushing the expedition to ridicilous risks, since for him the risk doesn't exist. The daughter trying to save the company. The crew finding itself way out of its league (they have 1 person with weapon training) and the discovery of the super powerful Aliens, who can break their suits, and either choose to instakill or infect and destroy from within. The Engineers who wish to destroy humankind instead of save them, an excellent late movie twist.
But the entire time the humans are just... retarded. They don't record what's being sent apparently, if you aren't in the room noone knows. They don't watch what other people are doing at all, letting David do all sorts of crazy stuff in plain sight (they call him on it once, and then it gets ignored again from there on), the guy who designed the automapping robots (which were cool) gets lost because apparently his 21st century full HUD spacesuit doesn't display the map he just created, they don't realize the alien life form is deadly after witnessing both Engineers dieing in 3D holovision and a pile of Engineers corpses, the list just goes on and on.
I watched it with some of my pnp D&D pals, and during the interval we basicly decided that they acted entirely like a D&D party: 1 person thinks something is a good idea and others either don't pay attention or want to see the hilarity that ensues.
Some detailed spoilers about stuff that bugged me:
Was it ever explained as to why David goes apeshit with regards to wanting to kill the crewmembers? Why he tool the oozing vase thing on the ship in the first place, poisoning Holloway and then doing nothing about the alien fetus? I mean surely killing off the two leads of the expedition would only make it harder for him to get Weyland in safely. I get the idea of androids developing personalities but he just turned homicidal for no apparent reason.
I thought that Rapace was incredibly forgettable as Shaw. Maybe I'm just comparing her to Sigourney Weaver too much, but I found it really hard to give a fuck about the character when she just acted incredibly stupid the entire time. The "I can't give life" line seemed so out of place that I just could not stop laughing at it.
The whole theological aspect kinda annoyed me. The point where the scientist says "oh, so you're just going to disprove several centuries of Darwinism just like that" and that's what they do! There's absolutely no reasoning behind the plot other than "lol alien god DNA", not even an attempt at technobabble to give some sort of explanation. I guess that'll be expanded on during the sequel which they were obviously building up to with that ending!
edit: for all my problems with it, I thought Fassbender put in a great performance even if I didn't like his character.
Tav on
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
I'm not reading any spoilers about Prometheus.
Kind of trying to figure out if I wouldn't be more concerned about how good the movie actually is if people weren't able to evaluate its flaws. Most of the time when I get a consensus and people really, really like it, I go, "Fuck it, it's cooked. It's not going to be that good and I'm going to end up unhappily envying the people who like it more than I can, because they seem to be having a pretty good time with something I think is just average."
And then something like the weird air of failure vibe I'm getting tends to tell me more, "This movie has something in it a lot of people don't like that they might be interpreting incorrectly or not framing in proper proportion with the rest of the film. Of course, it could be cooked and and missing a giant, important scrap in the tapestry that's pathetically flapping over the rest of the composition, but that might be interesting too."
I saw Prometheus.... it's 75% of a decent to good movie with one giant flaw that becomes increasingly difficult to ignore as the movie progresses:
(mild and unspecific spoiler)
The crew is a bunch of idiots on the least scientific mission possible.
This really hurts immersion. Otherwise it's well shot, decent actors, Fassbenderbot is great, 3D wasn't terrible. But the thing is, the movie really didn't need the above flaw:
(detailed spoilers)
There is a ton of potential conflict anyway. The robot who has to serve his master, the hidden away Weyland, but also perhaps tries to plot in immense power for himself, and the possible annihilation of the human species to begin with. The fanatic and dieing master pushing the expedition to ridicilous risks, since for him the risk doesn't exist. The daughter trying to save the company. The crew finding itself way out of its league (they have 1 person with weapon training) and the discovery of the super powerful Aliens, who can break their suits, and either choose to instakill or infect and destroy from within. The Engineers who wish to destroy humankind instead of save them, an excellent late movie twist.
But the entire time the humans are just... retarded. They don't record what's being sent apparently, if you aren't in the room noone knows. They don't watch what other people are doing at all, letting David do all sorts of crazy stuff in plain sight (they call him on it once, and then it gets ignored again from there on), the guy who designed the automapping robots (which were cool) gets lost because apparently his 21st century full HUD spacesuit doesn't display the map he just created, they don't realize the alien life form is deadly after witnessing both Engineers dieing in 3D holovision and a pile of Engineers corpses, the list just goes on and on.
I watched it with some of my pnp D&D pals, and during the interval we basicly decided that they acted entirely like a D&D party: 1 person thinks something is a good idea and others either don't pay attention or want to see the hilarity that ensues.
Some detailed spoilers about stuff that bugged me:
Was it ever explained as to why David goes apeshit with regards to wanting to kill the crewmembers? Why he tool the oozing vase thing on the ship in the first place, poisoning Holloway and then doing nothing about the alien fetus? I mean surely killing off the two leads of the expedition would only make it harder for him to get Weyland in safely. I get the idea of androids developing personalities but he just turned homicidal for no apparent reason.
I thought that Rapace was incredibly forgettable as Shaw. Maybe I'm just comparing her to Sigourney Weaver too much, but I found it really hard to give a fuck about the character when she just acted incredibly stupid the entire time. The "I can't give life" line seemed so out of place that I just could not stop laughing at it.
The whole theological aspect kinda annoyed me. The point where the scientist says "oh, so you're just going to disprove several centuries of Darwinism just like that" and that's what they do! There's absolutely no reasoning behind the plot other than "lol alien god DNA", not even an attempt at technobabble to give some sort of explanation. I guess that'll be expanded on during the sequel which they were obviously building up to with that ending!
edit: for all my problems with it, I thought Fassbender put in a great performance even if I didn't like his character.
The vase/poison thing appears to be more or less orders from Weyland to get as much information on this stuff as possible, screw the crewmembers. He does the poisoning right after speaking with Weyland. I think he is loyal to his Master due to his programming, but in his 2 years alone he also grown a deep dislike for humankind, and perhaps is attempting to overthrow it... perhaps by spreading the Aliens to earth. But none of that is very clear, while the movie throws other stuff right in your face.
The theological stuff did bother me a bit, though the movie did mock them a bit for being 'true believers' as well. And yeah, the whole "I can't have kids out of nowhere wasn't good.
The Engineer timeline is also completely messed up. They released their DNA into the water (in a time where there are apparently already mosses, but otherwise you see no life at all in those shots), apparently visited while humankind evolved throughout the stone ages, and then about 2000 years ago decided to wipe us out, and then not? What did Romans do exactly? Perhaps it was Jesus that changed their mind?
The Dictator was dumb, but funny. I doubt I'll ever watch it again, but it made me laugh and didn't outstay its welcome.
yeah it was OK. Fun to see it with a crowd, not all that memorable.
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
After finally gotten around to watch 'Hackers', I have to say that this movie should of been 'straight to soundtrack'.
But yeah, this movie completely misrepresented the sub culture. Seriously, Fast and Furious did a better job at portraying underground street racing better then this movie portrays hacking....
The Dictator was dumb, but funny. I doubt I'll ever watch it again, but it made me laugh and didn't outstay its welcome.
yeah it was OK. Fun to see it with a crowd, not all that memorable.
There were a few clever bits in there, but for the most part it was a throwback to some Peter Sellers-style slapstick and humour. Maybe a bit angrier, though.
After finally gotten around to watch 'Hackers', I have to say that this movie should of been 'straight to soundtrack'.
But yeah, this movie completely misrepresented the sub culture. Seriously, Fast and Furious did a better job at portraying underground street racing better then this movie portrays hacking....
Does this mean there isn't a public access television show called "Hack the Planet?"
Posts
Gigli is nowhere nearly as awful as Southland Tales.
Gigli is a bad pot-roast.
Southland Tales is a pot-roast that comes alive halfway through your dinner and sodomizes you while beating you with a coatrack, singing "Mandy" by Barry Manilow at the top of its non-existent lungs.
Jeez
He seems grumpy that he's making a movie, all the time. Like the roommate you have to coax to get to go to a bar on a Friday night, but all they do is sit in a booth and nurse a beer, ignoring all the fun going on around them, then once you're back at your apartment they complain they had a terrible time and they're never going out again.
He's definitely got that whole butt-hurt white trash energy going on. He's a nice enough guy it seems, but I just don't see him becoming the AAA leading man that so many studios want him to be.
You just can't have a conversation that goes, "Hey, what's that movie about?"
"Oh, it's about a duck from outer space that fights giant crab monsters and falls in love with a girl in a rock band."
"Is it any good?"
This film is THE Titanic film in my opinion. I first caught the last ten minutes or so when it was on TCM from the part with the woman talking to Mr. Andrews to the people on board singing Nearer My God to Thee as it sunk and it got tears out of me all right.
Yeah, I don't really get the push to make him a leading man. The idea, which I think has been dropped, of having him take Cruise's place seemed pretty foolish. I'm not really sure he makes a good Matt Damon replacement either, but that type of movie will suit him better.
but they're listening to every word I say
I'd prefer him being the new Ethan Hunt or replacement for Ethan Hunt over Cruise in Mission: Impossible. Renner looks like he's been through some terrible shit kinda like Craig's James Bond, Cruise never appears to be in any danger with his movies.
(mild and unspecific spoiler)
(detailed spoilers)
But the entire time the humans are just... retarded. They don't record what's being sent apparently, if you aren't in the room noone knows. They don't watch what other people are doing at all, letting David do all sorts of crazy stuff in plain sight (they call him on it once, and then it gets ignored again from there on), the guy who designed the automapping robots (which were cool) gets lost because apparently his 21st century full HUD spacesuit doesn't display the map he just created, they don't realize the alien life form is deadly after witnessing both Engineers dieing in 3D holovision and a pile of Engineers corpses, the list just goes on and on.
I watched it with some of my pnp D&D pals, and during the interval we basicly decided that they acted entirely like a D&D party: 1 person thinks something is a good idea and others either don't pay attention or want to see the hilarity that ensues.
But then he was in The Hurt Locker and went from occasional supporting actor in ensemble movies to the star of an Oscar-winning film in the space of a single performance, one where he played a dude whose main qualities were being grouchy and intense. It wouldn't surprise me if a) people have been casting him because they saw Hurt Locker and said "get me a grouchy, intense guy like that" or b) that he's chosen to deliver more performances in that vein because it's what made his career.
there's also a crazy star trek obsessed traffic warden.
"lets do some van-dammage!"
It's you pretty standard 'by the numbers' fantasy flick. I like how they actually took the time to make the evil queen something more then 'she's evil because fuck you, that's why'.
Though, what really bugged is the length scale of this movie.
How can *mild spoilers*
William travel from one castle to the other in what appears to be a day. Then, in a later scene, you have the characters trekking for like 4 days to go a shorter distance then what William did earlier. Then later on, you have a freaking army make the same trip in the morning and have time to invade a castle in the afternoon?
At one point of the movie I have to ask out loud 'Where the fuck are they going?' when Snow White is just randomly trekking through the mountains and ends up in forest cover in snow.
Other then that......I rather had watched 'Dictator'.
FedEx dropping off a dining room table at my house is a less wooden delivery than Jeremy Renner has. His acting range varies from smirking scowl to scowling smirk. He has the brooding, quiet intensity down, but that's all he has. He perpetually looks like he just smelled a fart.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The guy is not nearly as threatening as the villain in MI3
Also, saw MIB3. Fun little flick.
Yeah, it could have trimmed a tiny bit. The last third gets a little muddied but it's not so bad. I'd say it's kind of borderline with the hand-holding - I mean honestly I didn't see the reveal coming and they went through it well enough.
And yeah, great villain, performed well.
Yes. The fact that the villain is so impersonal and faceless, not to mention off-screen most of the film, completely undercuts the stakes of the film.
It really comes out looking like little more that a pretext to show Tom Cruise running away from things.
oh damn
That is one King Hell of a line right there. I don't agree with it, but I am impressed by it.
Renner has been putting off what reads to me as a sort of rough intensity. Definitely not leading man stuff, but something that gives a riveting neurosis appeal, not unlike early Walken stuff. That is about as far as I'm willing to take that comparison, but Renner reads to me like a guy who will do brilliant support work and may become one of those guys who can pull impressive performances out of slightly above-average costars just by being in the room with them.
yeah, he's the reason i watched the whole Wolverine movie.
Some detailed spoilers about stuff that bugged me:
I thought that Rapace was incredibly forgettable as Shaw. Maybe I'm just comparing her to Sigourney Weaver too much, but I found it really hard to give a fuck about the character when she just acted incredibly stupid the entire time. The "I can't give life" line seemed so out of place that I just could not stop laughing at it.
The whole theological aspect kinda annoyed me. The point where the scientist says "oh, so you're just going to disprove several centuries of Darwinism just like that" and that's what they do! There's absolutely no reasoning behind the plot other than "lol alien god DNA", not even an attempt at technobabble to give some sort of explanation. I guess that'll be expanded on during the sequel which they were obviously building up to with that ending!
edit: for all my problems with it, I thought Fassbender put in a great performance even if I didn't like his character.
Kind of trying to figure out if I wouldn't be more concerned about how good the movie actually is if people weren't able to evaluate its flaws. Most of the time when I get a consensus and people really, really like it, I go, "Fuck it, it's cooked. It's not going to be that good and I'm going to end up unhappily envying the people who like it more than I can, because they seem to be having a pretty good time with something I think is just average."
And then something like the weird air of failure vibe I'm getting tends to tell me more, "This movie has something in it a lot of people don't like that they might be interpreting incorrectly or not framing in proper proportion with the rest of the film. Of course, it could be cooked and and missing a giant, important scrap in the tapestry that's pathetically flapping over the rest of the composition, but that might be interesting too."
I'm hard to please.
The theological stuff did bother me a bit, though the movie did mock them a bit for being 'true believers' as well. And yeah, the whole "I can't have kids out of nowhere wasn't good.
The Engineer timeline is also completely messed up. They released their DNA into the water (in a time where there are apparently already mosses, but otherwise you see no life at all in those shots), apparently visited while humankind evolved throughout the stone ages, and then about 2000 years ago decided to wipe us out, and then not? What did Romans do exactly? Perhaps it was Jesus that changed their mind?
yeah it was OK. Fun to see it with a crowd, not all that memorable.
But yeah, this movie completely misrepresented the sub culture. Seriously, Fast and Furious did a better job at portraying underground street racing better then this movie portrays hacking....
There were a few clever bits in there, but for the most part it was a throwback to some Peter Sellers-style slapstick and humour. Maybe a bit angrier, though.
Does this mean there isn't a public access television show called "Hack the Planet?"