Author Topic: Movies (Read 281853 times)

superaielman · « **Reply #300 on:** March 11, 2009, 01:07:27 PM »

28 days later- Still enjoyable, though a lot of that is the pretty countryside they film it in.

RE 1- Not so good. Too much really bad plot, not enough action.
RE 2- Better, though Jill was almost entirely a nonfactor. Overdosing on zombie movies here, Dawn of the Dead's next.

I said it before, but Ciddy you must watch Lesbian vampire hunters.

Grefter · « **Reply #301 on:** March 11, 2009, 01:54:05 PM »

You are in the UK, you need to watch Shaun of the Dead if you are watching zombie flicks. Also Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

OblivionKnight · « **Reply #302 on:** March 11, 2009, 02:32:32 PM »

Quote from: Grefter on March 11, 2009, 01:54:05 PM

You are in the UK, you need to watch Shaun of the Dead if you are watching zombie flicks. Also Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

Quoted for Truth

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #303 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:05:31 PM »

Watchmen- Awesome movie. For all that the backstory is compressed into the opening credits, it was still very stylish and well done. The musical selections for the movie were great. Very appropriate whenever they used period music. It amused me that half the cast of Eureka seemed to be in the movie (Mothman, Moloch, the New Frontiersman guy at the end). I expected Nathan Stark to come out as Ozymandias and Jack Carter to be in there somewhere.

Sierra · « **Reply #304 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:10:02 PM »

Quote from: OblivionKnight on March 11, 2009, 02:32:32 PM

Quote from: Grefter on March 11, 2009, 01:54:05 PM
You are in the UK, you need to watch Shaun of the Dead if you are watching zombie flicks. Also Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

Quoted for Truth

28 Days Later is set in the UK, no?

metroid composite · « **Reply #305 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:22:22 PM »

Watchmen (from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the original)

Good.
I...kinda hesitate to call it great, though. Slow-moving in parts. Less of...everything than I thought it would be (except gore--plenty of that).

It had been billed as "this is how superheroes would work in the real world" which...ehh. Rorschach was believable in as much as he's a sociopath, but that's nothing I haven't seen before (The Punisher). Silk Specter and Nite Owl were believable to a degree, in that they get an adrenalin rush and a sexual high out of superheroing, and actually try to be heroic. At the same time, when they're in a coffee shop and laughing loudly about Rorschach dropping someone down an elevator shaft, I really have to think "aren't you blowing your cover?" Speaking of blowing cover...what's up with the Silk Specter's costume--is it meant to be ironic? The Comedian is...well I can't accuse the character of being unbelievable, since I know irresponsible rapists exist and stuff, but the fact that he doesn't get kicked out of the good guy leagues is puzzling. He seems to exist more as a foil/plot device for other characters, like when he confronts Dr Manhattan saying "you could have turned the bullets into air, the gun into cheese, the glass into snow...". Dr Manhattan has had his brain modified (perception is a huge part of the brain's operation) so it's hard to really evaluate him as a human thinker--Data from Startrek is what he reminded me of. Ozymandias is...well on the one hand, he's right, that's one way to achieve world peace. On the other hand, I can't see someone actually going through with his eventual plan; it's so...convoluted.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #306 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:32:55 PM »

The Comedian WAS kicked out of the Minutemen for that. You're right though in that they don't really bring that up in the movie.

Sierra · « **Reply #307 on:** March 11, 2009, 10:42:33 PM »

Re: Silk Spectre/Nite Owl. Haven't seen the movie, but I don't think Silk Spectre's identity was any kind of secret in the book. Nite Owl, though? Yeah, point. Having that conversation in a coffee shop does seem a little "What." The scene took place in a rooftop in the book and there was no one else around.

Shale · « **Reply #308 on:** March 11, 2009, 11:00:15 PM »

Silk Spectre started her superheroing to promote her modeling career. A secret identity wasn't exactly in the cards.

Grefter · « **Reply #309 on:** March 12, 2009, 09:25:13 AM »

That shit is exactly what I mean, the movie is great if you know the plot, if you don't it isn't quite as well put together.

Nite Owl's secret identity is about as secret as anyone really cares it to be anyway. With how much they all just kind of hang out together in their regular personas with people who have no secret disguises, Rorschach and the Comedian are really the only ones who could hide or frankly had anything to hide.

superaielman · « **Reply #310 on:** March 16, 2009, 12:53:05 AM »

Quote from: Grefter on March 11, 2009, 01:54:05 PM

You are in the UK, you need to watch Shaun of the Dead if you are watching zombie flicks. Also Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.

Didn't get around to it, seen it a couple of times already. SofD's a lot of fun.

Dawn>RE3>28 days>RE2>RE1 for the ones I saw. REs start slow and constantly get better as they start to ignore plot and focus on action. The undead are never really the threat in RE, it's umbrella. (Hell even scrubs completely own the zombies in RE, see LJ in RE2). Dawn's cool because the zombies -are- scary. The humans make mistakes which get them wiped out, but by and large it's about the zombies. Works. 28 days has some pacing problems and some weird story stuff in the mix but is solid enough.

BaconForTheSoul · « **Reply #311 on:** March 16, 2009, 01:36:01 AM »

Watchmen: Wasn't good, wasn't bad. I didn't really find myself bored during the movie, but I also didn't really find myself wowed.

Role Models: Good for some cheap laughs, nothing special. Above average for that type of movie though.

Grefter · « **Reply #312 on:** March 16, 2009, 08:47:31 AM »

Needs more other Romero there Super. NoLD is of course a classic, but DoLD and LoLD are both alright.

Edit - And by alright I mean way better than that Resident Evil shit.

superaielman · « **Reply #313 on:** March 16, 2009, 01:31:12 PM »

Don't care for the romero classics much, bu tI should see all of them them as an adult before deciding. Did not like land of the dead at all.

Grefter · « **Reply #314 on:** March 16, 2009, 01:41:07 PM »

Land is pretty much for people that like Romero. It was probably a bad idea to release it so close after DoLD remake which kind of deRomeroed it a little (Still worth watching, but is a bit different).

superaielman · « **Reply #315 on:** March 16, 2009, 01:43:35 PM »

Yeah, it's not my type of zombie movie. RE was fun because it was so awful, Dawn was just great for the style of zombies and the world setting.

Grefter · « **Reply #316 on:** March 16, 2009, 01:57:33 PM »

RE isn't even good as a bad movie. There are infinitely better bad movies. Fuck, Peter Jackson shit is better than RE for bad zombie flick. Much better and much cheaper splatter at that.

Hunter Sopko · « **Reply #317 on:** March 16, 2009, 04:30:38 PM »

Quote from: Grefter on March 16, 2009, 08:47:31 AM

Needs more other Romero there Super. NoLD is of course a classic, but DoLD and LoLD are both alright.

Edit - And by alright I mean way better than that Resident Evil shit.

Living Dead were the Russo spinoffs. He kept the naming rights to the Living Dead line. They're fairly sillyish. Sort of like a midway point between Night of the Living Dead and the comedy style of Evil Dead. Plus Russo Living Dead movies always = superfast zombies that won't die unless nuked or otherwise reduced to dust.

I always like the Romero movies more. More atmospheric. Slow zombies instill a fear of impending doom and inevitability despite their crappy stats.

Grefter · « **Reply #318 on:** March 16, 2009, 10:19:47 PM »

Exactly, fast Zombies may as well not be Zombies. You can replace them with any generic monster. It is like having Medusa that breathes fire instead of turning you to stone.

metroid composite · « **Reply #319 on:** March 17, 2009, 09:04:30 AM »

Dragonball Evolution--someone linked me to the full movie on Youtube, and it's not like I respect this kind of movie enough to actually want to give money to the creators, so I went ahead and watched.

You know, I hadn't really thought about it, but Dragonball plot can't be compressed into two hours. This is unintuitive, since some of the subplots don't span that many episodes, and it doesn't feel like anything happens in Dragon Ball, but when you try and explain backstory and motivation for four or five characters, it's just brutal for time.

The movie's not really true to the cannon either, but pfft: cannon Dragonball plot. Who cares? Although Master Roshi not being old was just...what? I can understand not getting an actor that looks like him, because no human being looks like ugly Dragonball art, but can't you dye his beard white, make him wear a bald cap, and give him some red-rim sunglasses?

Overall, pretty bad. Significantly worse than, say, the Dead or Alive movie, and I'm fairly biased against all things DoA.

Sierra · « **Reply #320 on:** March 20, 2009, 08:40:31 PM »

Quote from: Chapin on March 16, 2009, 01:36:01 AM

Watchmen: Wasn't good, wasn't bad. I didn't really find myself bored during the movie, but I also didn't really find myself wowed.

Just got back from seeing it, quoting for laziness. Muddled but watchable (not that I am likely to watch it again because hey, I have the book, but that is part of a larger "Why the hell does everything have to be a movie" rant). Main complaint is that Ozy came across as being a flake. I mean, he kind of was in the book, but he was more obviously competent there. Oh well. Movie wasn't an abomination, which is about the best I'd realistically expected.

Cotigo · « **Reply #321 on:** March 21, 2009, 07:55:00 AM »

Watchmen: Yeah, OK. I enjoyed it, I guess. Honestly I thought it was too faithful to the book in some respects (Up until Rorschach gets thrown in Jail.... Well, complex psychological character drama narrated like that works as a book. As a movie? It was just boring.), and if I hadn't read the book I don't think I would have enjoyed it as much as I did. The violence was a bit much, mostly because it was changed from the book to be more... graphic? The whole exchange between Rorschach and Big Figure was just ridiculous and hard to take seriously in the movie, as a more obvious example.

The changes they made usually benefitted the movie and were understandable for the most part. But, some of them were just... uh. Campy.

I did have the interesting experience of seeing it with someone who had never read the book and someone who read the book a few years ago. I suspect their reactions were typical: The person who hadn't read the book before hated the movie and got confused by some things (that, in fairness, weren't explained in the movie, but were in the book), and the person who had read it a few years ago loved it. I imagine I would have liked it more if I hadn't read it just, like, Monday.

Grefter · « **Reply #322 on:** March 21, 2009, 08:21:06 AM »

I like it when I am right and people confirm that I am right for weeks afterwards. Thanks Zenny, good to read that from different perspective.

Cotigo · « **Reply #323 on:** March 21, 2009, 08:35:09 AM »

Oh, yeah, two more things:

Taking out any overt mention of The New Frontiersman and still ending the movie there is stupid.

Also, it is hard to have a story where disillusionment and the death of romanticism (Rorschach, in a nutshell) when everything comes off as so damn melodramatic (the ending, Manhattan/Laurie scene on Mars). But that's getting into metaphorics and artfag shit a bit and if I'm going to rant about that I may as well write my essays.

Scar · « **Reply #324 on:** March 21, 2009, 06:40:25 PM »

Been seeing a lot of movies lately.

Watchmen - It was good. Added soem stuff, took some things out. All in all it was what i expected. Also, the ending in the movie was a trillion times better then the books.

Taken - Good form what I saw.

Role Models - Paul Rudd is awesome.

I Love You, Man - Again.

News:

Author Topic: Movies (Read 281853 times)