The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A Thread About Movies
Jacobkosh
Gamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
Gamble a stamp.I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2-GX0Tltgw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A8tvz5se80
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE1bzNrdz8sThis is the thread about movies. You're free to talk about anything related to cinema, but be interesting about it. Nobody wants to read "I saw ______, it sucked."
The use of the word "pretentious" is banned until further notice.
Jacobkosh on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
The 13th Warrior for me.
so sappily italian, but still so good
Not sure about the most underrated I've seen, but I think the movies with the highest I liked it/other people didn't like it ratio are Willow (I adore it, lots of people seem to either tolerate or hate it), Assassination of a High School President (again, mostly merits a "meh" from others), and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which seems to have been a generally divisive movie in any case, so I'm not sure if that's underrated or not.
I'm not even sure what underrated means for movies. If it means "I wish people gave this movie more credit" it's kind of weird, because a lot of movies are fantastic precisely because not everyone will like them (Repo Man, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, They Live!, Big Troulbe in Little China...). They're quirky/outside the mainstream and all the better for it. Heck, even stuff like a lot of the Coen Brothers' oeuvre is hit or miss for lots of people. And torture porn like Saw falls into the "miss" category for me, whereas I have friends who love it. So if most people were like me, would Saw be underrated? Or would it just appeal to fewer people and have precisely the "rating" it deserves?
They are showing Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America on Thursday, May 3rd starting at 11:30am before the midnight release of The Avengers. $40 tickets and you get one of four special 3D glasses I believe.
Tumblr | Twitter | Twitch | Pinny Arcade Lanyard
[3DS] 3394-3901-4002 | [Xbox/Steam] Redfield85
I agree with this in theory, however I am insecure enough that I hate to learn that some random stranger doesn't like something that I like.
Oh okay, then.
The thing I thought was most odd about it was how it seemed to recognize and, at first, avoid typical high-school film scenarios, where "these are the jocks and they are cool and these guys are nerds and they suck" typically applies. It was refreshing to see the walkthrough of the school parking lot where they're pointing out "Those are the goths, those are the nerds, those are...I don't know what those are...what the fuck are these guys...?" But then by the end of the films, nerds are helping the case in their usual techie ways of helping in films like this. I guess it couldn't be avoided.
Stereotypes aside, the film is really well-written and well-acted. Channing Tatum is surprisingly likable, surprising because he's usually such a blank slate of an actor. Moneyball made me gave Jonah Hill a reevaluation and he's doing well with me so far. The climax of the film was a really nice nod to anyone who actually watched and enjoyed the series, even if it did evolve into a bit of a mindless chase scene after that.
Still, I definitely recommend it, and Brie Larson is in it, she's gorgeous and not in nearly enough films
Definitely agree about the divisive nature of Scott Pilgrim. I've loaned out my copy many times, and recurring theme is that people who have played video games like it, and those who haven't don't like it.
40 bucks for one good movie? What a ripoff.
Which would be a shame, but I suspect that plus hatred of anything that looks like a "hipster" is what turns a lot of people off with that movie.
I love Scott Pilgrim even though it's a movie about romance and I didn't especially want Scott to wind up with Cold-and-icy. Or Creepily-obsessed Fan-girl. (Scott Pilgrim's another movie with an awesome opening credits sequence.)
Is this assuming The Avengers will be good?
I thought Bryan Lee O'Malley's originally planned end of the comic with Scott
Strange that they're sticking The Hulk in there since whichever of the two it is, it's out of canon with the other films.
Arguably the best viking movie of all time, in my opinion.
Is it really? I mean aside from a different actor, isn't the latest Hulk still canon? Tony Stark shows up at the end, right?
I have no real clue about anything Hunger Games-related other than what I've seen in the trailers, but the gist I'm getting is this: Impoverished people are divided into "zones," every once in a while they hold something called the Hunger Games, a kid from each zone is selected, the winning kid's zone gets more food? Is that it?
Is that it? There has to be more to it than that, right? Some bigger hook? I can't tell if it's just really that straightforward or if this film just has the absolute worst marketing in the world.
Hrrm.
I mean, I have no interest in it by any means, but I'm getting the sense that this movie isn't going to be nearly as big as the people behind it would expect it to be.
it's not marketing to you really
This is a good question. My own sense of it has always been that the term either refers to something that hasn't quite found the audience it deserves, or that doesn't get credit for being as good as it is. A good example of the first case is a movie like Strange Days, which is a terrific sci-fi mystery/thriller but which few people have heard of and fewer still have seen. It's not for everyone, but it deserves to be mentioned and appreciated more often than it is, if you follow.
He's wrong. The Incredible Hulk is indeed in continuity.
Also what's wrong with you people? All the Avengers movies have been fun and competent. Certainly not the best but come on.
EDIT_ Also you really couldn't tell which of two movies, one that is despised and came out over a decade ago and the one that came out like three years ago and got a fairly ok response is in continuity?
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
Who is it marketing to?
the bajillion people who read the books
who then drag their friends to see it
Thats about all you need to know. I'll probably go see it because even while I hated the character I liked the worldbuilding the author did.
The Hunger Games is basically Battle Royale. Last one to survive wins. That's all I know, and I don't particularly care.
I like Battle Royale and girly drama
I mean, I'm going to see it, but it just feels like there should be...more to it than that, somehow
I don't know how much of this is spoilers but this is the basic premise of The Hunger Games, explained over the course of the first chapter or so:
The Hunger Games are a last man standing fight to the death, and the combatants are children chosen by lottery from all the districts that lost the war. The whole thing is a demonstration of power by a totalitarian regime to reassert dominance by forcing the citizens of the districts to watch their children die on television.
Also, keep in mind that it is science fiction, so there's all kinds of robots and flying cars and weather machines and shit!
To be fair, I haven't seen Captain America yet, so I'll concede that maybe it's a fun time
Thor was okay. Iron Man 2 and The Incredible Hulk were pretty bad, only having one noteworthy scene each (the Iron Man/War Machine party fight, Tim Roth on the super soldier serum).
Iron Man 1 I still consider to be the best superhero film yet, but then they went and blew all that goodwill with Iron Man 2, and The Avengers looks like it will be a terrible alien invasion flick with superheroes. I like Joss Whedon but my biggest fear with The Avengers is that it's going to be all-action, all the time, with so many characters strewn about that there will be no time for actual plot or character development. Which is why you'd bring Joss Whedon in, so he can do his action-scene one-liners. Some people probably think this is okay to do because these characters all had their back stories already done in previous films, but those are the types of films I like to see when seeing a superhero film, and I think that the majority of those in this case (outside of Iron Man 1) were poorly done.
Somebody get this man Joss's interview regarding it.
You needn't worry. The flick is a true ensemble and there will be plot.
https://gofund.me/fa5990a5
My little brother's 7th grade class is going to it on opening day. Where were these things when I was going to school?
They choose two kids from each zone. A boy and a girl. FOR THE ROMANCE
There is also a corporate sponsorship thing.
Whoa, what?
I have never heard of a public school class going to see a movie for a field trip
Theaters have to love that kind of guaranteed business though, I guess. Reminds me of when local churches were buying out entire theaters for The Passion of the Christ and handing out tickets to churchgoers, telling them to bring friends.
Actually Whedon's talent is writing excellent ensemble casts, not action scenes. He's a good enough writer to make very character unique, everyone gets a time to shine, comedy & tragedy come from the conflicts from interaction.
That and he's excellent directing talent rivaling that of any previous Marvel director.
Read his interviews about Avengers. They'll show why you have nothing to worry about.
Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are inferior to Iron Man 1, Thor and Captain America but they're not bad movies, they're mediocre at best. Sure IM 2 was hurt by setting up Avengers, it were still enjoyable IMO.
7th grade we got taken to Fellowship of the Ring, it was a solid field trip
maybe i'm streaming terrible dj right now if i am its here
The hook of The Hunger Games is basically My First Dystopia + the glamour of being a reality TV star + nonsense love triangle + Battle Royale.
The books aren't terrible--they're certainly not Twilight, for instance--but the author doesn't know how to end things, and that includes the trilogy. And the main character vacillates between interesting/cool/badass and weak/moronic/myopic. And for a story that's at least half about the love triangle when it's not about pretty young people trying to kill each other, there's zero sex appeal at all (chaste kissing is as racy as it gets).
It's not like, high literature or anything, but it's also not something that should make you bemoan the state of our species or anything.
I liked both leads more than I have in anything else as well.
fairly smart/self-aware comedy, definitely worth checking out. new respect for jonah hill, not that I didn't enjoy him in things before but knowing he was involved with the story and getting this made is great.
I read some wharglebargle on the imbd boards that went something like how dare they cast a woman to play Prospero! Feminism has gone too far this time! I guess it wouldn't help to point out that in Shakespeare's day Prospero's daughter would've been played by a prepubescent teenage boy.
Anyway I liked the movie well enough - I enjoyed the new-agey soundtrack and Mirren and the rest of the cast is good. Chris Cooper has a lot of fun as one of the villains. I was expecting Mirren to play the part in a masculine/androgynous way but she injects a lot of femininity and motherlyless into her performance.
The special effects detract from the film though - not so much because they're SyFy channel quality but because I don't think surrealism mixes well with computer effects. Part of the reason the rabbitheads in Inland Empire are so neat is that you know that if you happened to be standing in the room when they filmed that scene, you'd see exactly what you see on-screen: a shadowy living room full of people with giant rabbit-heads. So I'd prefer it if Ariel was just a pretty naked dude who is covered in white face paint - no need to make him transparent and make him digitally teleport across the screen non-stop and make wisps of smoke come off him.
Also, casting a black actor as the evil buffoonish rapist slave? And making him the only black character? And giving him tribal drum theme music? I, uh, dunno if that was the right call.
Fassbender continues to be an actor I love watching, no matter what he does. And Knightley put in a performance that was outside of her comfort zone at first (at least, I thought so), but she slowly began to grate on me.
Anybody else see it?