G
Gadzooks
:moon: http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi2645557785/ :moon:
looks interesting to me! hope it doesnt end up like Sunshine last year
looks interesting to me! hope it doesnt end up like Sunshine last year
- Status
S
Steven Soderburgin
I'm seeing this tomorrow, and have heard good things.
Also, Sunshine was fine (and it came out in 2007, not last year) so I don't know what you're talking about.
Also, Sunshine was fine (and it came out in 2007, not last year) so I don't know what you're talking about.
S
Singularity.EXE
Sunshine was an amazing movie.
This is a terrible movie. I thought I enjoyed it when I walked out of it, then I was upset by it, then I was disappointed by it, then I hated it.
Spoiler:
[spoiler:2xvja7l8]The Sixth Day (with Ah-nold) did a better job of representing the emotional reprecussions of cloning then this movie did.[/spoiler:2xvja7l8]
This is a terrible movie. I thought I enjoyed it when I walked out of it, then I was upset by it, then I was disappointed by it, then I hated it.
Spoiler:
[spoiler:2xvja7l8]The Sixth Day (with Ah-nold) did a better job of representing the emotional reprecussions of cloning then this movie did.[/spoiler:2xvja7l8]
G
Gill Kaiser
I liked Sunshine. Danny Boyle's almost lyrical evocation of the sheer power of the Sun worked very well, it was only in the last act that it started to fall apart.
From what I've heard, Moon is an old-school philosophical sci-fi movie along the same lines as 2001. I am quite interested in seeing it.
From what I've heard, Moon is an old-school philosophical sci-fi movie along the same lines as 2001. I am quite interested in seeing it.
G
Gadzooks
Sorry, shoulda been more specific.
this, too out-of-nowhere of a twist, the first 2/3rds was awesome, overall i enjoyed it though
G
Gill Kaiser
I found the twist ok, but IMO it degenerated the film into [spoiler:13e8lgon]a slasher movie with a human opponent[/spoiler:13e8lgon], as opposed to the man-vs-nature (or even Man vs. God) feel that had worked so well throughout the film.
S
Steven Soderburgin
This is a comment about Sunshine, I'm assuming?Gill Kaiser said:
G
Gill Kaiser
That's right. I haven't seen Moon yet; I don't think it's out in the UK until the 17th.
S
Steven Soderburgin
SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHGurpel said:
S
Steven Soderburgin
There is no way it will be worth my time to try, but I do want to ask this: are you talking about Steven Soderbergh's 2002 version or Andrei Tarkovsky's original from 1972?
Kissinger said:
Next time you or Charlie wonders where you get your reputation when it comes to movies I am just going toKissinger said:
.
S
Steven Soderburgin
I don't wonder at all, but my reasons for not really delving into the discussion are two fold: First, that is not really the topic of the thread, and second, I'm about to go to sleep. I'd be more than happy to talk with Gurpel about it in its own thread or through IM when I have more time, though. I'm actually a big Soderbergh fan (some would say "apologist") and I like his version of Solaris, so I'd love to talk with him about his reaction.ZenMonkey said:Next time you or Charlie wonders where you get your reputation when it comes to movies I am just going to
Three, counting "not worth my time."Kissinger said:
S
Steven Soderburgin
It's possible that statement was not entirely serious.ZenMonkey said:
M-O-O-N, that spells "moon"!
(Sorry, that's in my head every time I see the subject and I figured now was as good a time as any to say it.)
(Sorry, that's in my head every time I see the subject and I figured now was as good a time as any to say it.)
S
Steven Soderburgin
Okay, I am seriously going to sleep now, but as I said, I'm seeing this tomorrow night and after I do, I will give the FINAL WORD on whether or not you should see this.
S
Steven Soderburgin
This is a very good film. It treats the audience like adults, trusts your attention span, and poses some very interesting questions about what makes us human and what it means to lead a meaningful life. The sense of isolation is incredible, and the sound design and score are phenomenal. Sam Rockwell does a very good job here, as well, especially considering he's in just about every single frame of the film. I highly recommend this.
Hmm. It is quite likely that the closest theater to me that will show this movie is a 25 hours away between the highway and a boat. This is heartbreaking, because this looks like a great movie.
It just struck me though ... was the release date for this film intentionally this close to the anniversary of Apollo 11?
It just struck me though ... was the release date for this film intentionally this close to the anniversary of Apollo 11?
D
DougTheHead
Educate yourself.Gurpel said:
Saw Moon the other day, really liked it. My friend pointed out that [spoiler:2qxb4k0u]the movie's premise seemed flawed- it doesn't seem like the company should even need a human on the moon, considering how they can communicate in real-time with robots there, who would have the advantage of not needing things like food or air or a giant clone storage unit-[/spoiler:2qxb4k0u] but if you accept that going in, it's no big deal. A thought-provoking film about the sheer emptiness and loneliness of space.
S
Steven Soderburgin
I was thinking about that article when he asked that, too. It's a good article!DougTheHead said:
[spoiler:zgumrtg5]It seems to me that while they could have robots do most of the tasks, they need a human to do basic maintenance. Gerty can't go outside of the station.[/spoiler:zgumrtg5]
R
redapples
RE: Solaris.
I came to the book first, then the films in order. I was quite excited by the news of the remake and enjoyed it very much. It shifts away from the source material exactly as the article linked to mentions but works well for that. What both films show (to me) is how to make a decent film from a book: Take what you liked from the book and what excited you and use that to inspire an adaption into a new medium rather than slavishly trying to replicate the book.
I can appreciate that Soderbergh’s film is not to every one's taste but boring? It is slow and thoughtful but not ponderous. I appreciate that it might lack laser beams and space battles but none the less is a powerful work. Where the Tarkovsky stuck to the themes in the book surrounding the God like nature of Solaris (or perhaps more correctly the Clarkian theme of advanced technology/ability being construed as magic) Soderbergh focuses more on the effect rather than the cause of the manifestations and in that reexamines the source material for which I, for one, am grateful.
EDIT:Actually I had another thought about this prompted by the death of my wife's Aunt. I'm unable to make the funeral due to childcare issues, and will at some point need to make an appropriate gesture to her husband. My wife's family are all Church of Scotland and I'm an atheist. The point of the back story is that we need to tell our children something and the family line will be that she has gone to heaven, where as for me she lives on in our memory of her and in a very real sense (for me) exists there. Ten years on and I still have converstations with my Dad, particularly since my two girls came along.
So for me Solaris examines this dichotomy. Is the dead wife/child/brother alive, a memory or have the astronauts (Cosmonauts?) found heaven? No resolution is presented in any version in print of film, iirc, but it allows us to meditate on these questions. So if the point of art is to question, reflect and entertain then Solaris works on these levels and I would argue is therefore not boring.
I came to the book first, then the films in order. I was quite excited by the news of the remake and enjoyed it very much. It shifts away from the source material exactly as the article linked to mentions but works well for that. What both films show (to me) is how to make a decent film from a book: Take what you liked from the book and what excited you and use that to inspire an adaption into a new medium rather than slavishly trying to replicate the book.
I can appreciate that Soderbergh’s film is not to every one's taste but boring? It is slow and thoughtful but not ponderous. I appreciate that it might lack laser beams and space battles but none the less is a powerful work. Where the Tarkovsky stuck to the themes in the book surrounding the God like nature of Solaris (or perhaps more correctly the Clarkian theme of advanced technology/ability being construed as magic) Soderbergh focuses more on the effect rather than the cause of the manifestations and in that reexamines the source material for which I, for one, am grateful.
EDIT:Actually I had another thought about this prompted by the death of my wife's Aunt. I'm unable to make the funeral due to childcare issues, and will at some point need to make an appropriate gesture to her husband. My wife's family are all Church of Scotland and I'm an atheist. The point of the back story is that we need to tell our children something and the family line will be that she has gone to heaven, where as for me she lives on in our memory of her and in a very real sense (for me) exists there. Ten years on and I still have converstations with my Dad, particularly since my two girls came along.
So for me Solaris examines this dichotomy. Is the dead wife/child/brother alive, a memory or have the astronauts (Cosmonauts?) found heaven? No resolution is presented in any version in print of film, iirc, but it allows us to meditate on these questions. So if the point of art is to question, reflect and entertain then Solaris works on these levels and I would argue is therefore not boring.
Loved Sunshine. One of my favorite sci-fi films up there with 2001 (below it, but near it).
I loved Moon. Fantastic little sci-fi short story, you know, the kind you read in a old paperback full of sci-fi and horror stories from the 1950's. The science is iffy, but you except it to be, it's the 50's after all. At least that's how it came off to me.
I loved Moon. Fantastic little sci-fi short story, you know, the kind you read in a old paperback full of sci-fi and horror stories from the 1950's. The science is iffy, but you except it to be, it's the 50's after all. At least that's how it came off to me.
- Status