[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo

GasBandit

Staff member
Apparently it's a criminally uninteresting film.
It is VERY slow paced, and its primary conflict is a philisophical one. It's not exactly riveting (and it has some issues), but uninteresting is a bit harsh. I suppose those with shorter attention spans can't bear to sit still for 2 hours where nobody punches anybody else.
 
Well, I think I heard it's uninteresting because it's kind of stupid so there isn't much to invest in, philosophically or otherwise. I think one reviewer said something like, "It's almost like someone read a bunch of stuff about computers and AI in 1992 and then made a movie about it in 2014. And everyone yawned."
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I think whoever said that went in expecting a technothriller and kept waiting for Neo to fight Smith when the movie was really just asking the question "Even if you somehow manage to perfectly digitize a human mind, after a few months of lightspeed calculation, growth, expansion and evolution, is it really the same person any more? Is it something else? Or is it still the same person, just unleashed of the shackles that prevented it from becoming what it always wanted to be?"
 
I think the point they were making was that it was playing with ideas that have been played to death, and they didn't do it in a terribly interesting way. Either way, I'm sure I'll watch it because I'm a sucker for movies like that, but I'm managing my expectations.
 
Grudge Match. Surprisingly good, actually. Stallone, as usual, is just kind of there, but DeNiro's pretty great.

Ride Along. It was alright, I guess. Sometimes funny, sometimes just kinda dumb.
 
The Grey: Really good ... until the last moment. I say this with the caveat that I have no idea how else they would end the movie, so I don't feel right criticizing it. I probably wouldn't have felt any disappointment except that I had to pause the movie when I thought I had 10 minutes left, but it turned out I only had 1 minute and a half.

That said, I kind of had a feeling they weren't going to find any help. Those wolves didn't act like wolves that encountered humans on a regular basis, and their unnatural size suggested they'd been allowed to develop unhindered by human interference. And any actual fight scene would've looked goofy. So I don't know. Maybe the ending was fine and that inconvenient delay messed up the pacing of the emotional scene for me.

Otherwise, really solid survival film. Neeson is fantastic and the wolves were eerie. I loved how they mostly just watched or hovered in the darkness. Creepiest bit is the scene in the middle of the movie when you can't see them, but you can see their breath in the cold. If I had any effects complaints, it's one moment where Neeson exhales to show his breath and it's obviously a CGI puff. Otherwise, I didn't think the wolves looked bad at all. I've seen shitty CGI wolves (The Day After Tomorrow) and these ones were fine. Loved the alpha's glare--you could tell he'd been through hell.
 
After reading "Charlie and the Chocolate factory" for the firs time I thought- WHAT THE HELL and decided to watch Tim Burton's adaptation. It was...good? On the one hand it was very accurate to the book, but on the other hand at times it felt TOO accurate like I was just rereading the book at times. The major exception to this is Willy Wonka's character who doesn't really seem as enthusiastic about everything as he did in the book and was just LEGIT creepy. Not saying it was absolutely terrible, just a weird change. OH- and remember that creepy tunnel scene in the original film? Well Burton didn't even attempt to recreate it and am kind of okay with that. Kinda on the fence on that, maybe Burton felt he COULDN'T recreate the scene and I guess that's okay but it still would've been nice to see him try. All in all a weird film, but not a bad one.
 
I could've done without the addition of the dad, or the overblown Violet. Otherwise, I felt it was a solid attempt at recreating whatever it is that goes on inside of Roald Dahl's head.

--Patrick
 
A Fantastic Fear of Everything: This is one of those movies you watch because... well... you like Simon Pegg. I think a movie like this needs a big star to carry it because it just doesn't have much else going for it. I mean it's not terrible, but it's weird as heck. The majority of the film feels like you're going crazy just like the main character. There are places that are obviously meant for laughs, and the best you can do is kind of snicker at it. I didn't finish thinking like I had completely wasted my time. After all it is Simon Pegg being ridiculous.
It's on Netflix and it's got Simon Pegg. So if a free movie with a Brit sounds good then go for it.
 
Watched Divergence. Enjoyed it for what it was, will probably read the books. It's not going to win any awards, but the story and pacing were good, and the acting was fine. It is yet another "awesome teen" flick.
Fair warning: My wife, after coming off the entire Hunger Games series read the Divergence series. She ranted about how bad it was for at least a week after she was done. Scuttlebutt is that the movies might actually be improving the story.
 
Watched Pacific Rim last night. Great CGI, combat. Acting was hammy to say the lease.

Great for what it is for, popcorn movie.

So many plot holes I cannot even think straight. Build a wall? Everywhere? Really? Idiots.
 
Watched Pacific Rim last night. Great CGI, combat. Acting was hammy to say the lease.

Great for what it is for, popcorn movie.

So many plot holes I cannot even think straight. Build a wall? Everywhere? Really? Idiots.
I could pick apart the plot holes if I wanted to... but I was too busy being an excited little kid.

ROOOOCKET PUNCHU!
 
Watched Pacific Rim last night. Great CGI, combat. Acting was hammy to say the lease.

Great for what it is for, popcorn movie.

So many plot holes I cannot even think straight. Build a wall? Everywhere? Really? Idiots.
As I've noted before, Honest Movie trailers is pretty much dead-on with their assessment of the film:
 
I just want to point out that the sword was added to Gypsy Danger later in the movie. It wasn't there the entire time.
 
I could've done without the addition of the dad, or the overblown Violet. Otherwise, I felt it was a solid attempt at recreating whatever it is that goes on inside of Roald Dahl's head.

--Patrick
The Tim Burton version of that movie is a crime against humanity. I hated every single frame of it.
 
I seriously doubt he would have been thrilled with Burton's version of it either.

Looking around, seems that Dahl hated pretty much any adaptation of his work.
 
Last edited:
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Still an absolutely fantastic movie. It's actually interesting how the first half of the movie could've easily been another film noir mystery if you removed the toon elements. Detective snaps photos of a guy's wife in an uncompromising position, husband suspected of murder, detective gets pulled along for the ride. But the toon elements slowly over take the film, right up to the big Toon Town part of the film.

Yup. I love it.
 
The Avengers: Ah, that felt good. Haven't watched this since the theatrical run. Not surprised that I remembered it almost shot for shot; there's great moment after great moment. Some of the stuff provides nice set-up for Captain America 2. Evil glasses baldy was shown prominently on the hovercraft, working for the assholes in broad daylight.

Can't wait for Avengers 2 next year. I feel like the line from Loki to Tony Stark, "how will they have time to fight me when they're busy fighting you?" is foreshadowing.
 
Watched Pacific Rim last night. Great CGI, combat. Acting was hammy to say the lease.

Great for what it is for, popcorn movie.

So many plot holes I cannot even think straight. Build a wall? Everywhere? Really? Idiots.
Honestly, a wall seems like EXACTLY the kind of terrible idea the "suits" would come up with. That never felt like a false step to me.
 
Top