226 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

42.

Somebody please give me a real Jackie Robinson movie. I feel like I deserve it after what I just sat through, which was 2 hours of nothing but shallow goop. I did learn something new though. Did you guys know? Back in the 40s, no black person ever did anything wrong. And in fact, Jackie Robinson is our infallible Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Oh, and Branch Ricky (Harrison Ford) is God the Father, also infallible. Seriously, in the beginning of the movie, Ricky said to Robinson, "LIKE OUR SAVIOR, you've gotta have the guts to turn the other cheek." Then later on, "You're living the sermon. In the wilderness, 40 days, all of it. Only you."

Oh, and this is the song they played during the credits, along with pictures of Robinson and whatnot…

So, the Bible is about a baseball game, with Jackie-I-mean-"Jesus standing at the home plate."

Even the action was screwy. Not the cinematography, but the editing. The main facet of Robinson's game they were trying to highlight was his ability to steal bases. In the movie, every time he stole he got a terrible jump on the pitch. The pitcher had just about released the ball before he even started to take off; yet he was never thrown out. So either he had supernatural speed (*cough* Jesus), or all the major league catchers sucked. But that's not nearly the most disappointing aspect of the movie.

There was no depth to it, no realism whatsoever. Some white people were good, most were evil, and all black people were perfect. Seriously, not one black person made a single wrong decision in the entire movie. And the lines just sounded rehearsed. There was no depth to any of the relationships. Every little conversation from start to finish had to do with Jackie and race issues. I get that's what the movie's about but come on, these guys are real people. That's not all they ever talked about. As a result the characters were very bland and hardly relatable. Everyone had to be either pure evil, or absolutely flawless at heart. Nowhere in between.

  Show
And what's up with that trope that occurs in every bad sports movie? There's always a certain player or team (they're easily identifiable because you hate their guts) that gets the best of the protagonist toward the beginning. Then, in the last game of the movie, the good guy is redeemed and those douche bags finally get what they deserve. I'm tired of it, especially when it's thrown into "true" stories for the sake of half-baked drama. And still on top of that, they didn't even do a good job with it in this movie. They tried acting like Jackie facing that pitcher from earlier on was such a big deal at the end, but I had to take a second to remember who the guy actually was. He was pretty insignificant and they tried to force drama out of it. It just didn't work.

No complaints about the acting, I thought it was very good. Too bad the movie was completely uninspiring.

http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/42-movie.jpg

Go to forum: Off Topic

227 Reply by Sam F

(62 replies, posted in Episodes)

The Goonies, The Sandlot, and An American Tale: Fievel Goes West

Go to forum: Episodes

228 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The World's End - Fun ride, enjoyed myself the whole way through. These guys have a knack for making perfect movies. So many random setups that I hardly ever noticed (including simple lines of dialogue), followed by subtle and witty payoffs on down the line, without ever missing a beat or slowing the pace.

http://media.sfx.co.uk/files/2013/05/The-Worlds-End-poster.jpg

Go to forum: Off Topic

229 Reply by Sam F

(8 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah I think a documentary about reality TV production would be very eye-opening.

Go to forum: Off Topic

230 Reply by Sam F

(8 replies, posted in Off Topic)

So many people got pissed about this, and it's understandable. So why don't more people get pissed at reality TV shows? Really, they're all fabricated (some to a greater extent than others) and they try to play it off like what you're watching is real life.

Go to forum: Off Topic

231 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Franco and Kunis were totally wrong for those roles. I can't help but think they got their parts just because Raimi and Franco are buds and Franco and Kunis are buds.

  Show
About the smiley gift, it's the same sorta thing as what he gives to the crew in The Wizard of Oz, so I see why they introduced his weird gift-giving at the end. So I didn't have a big issue with that, but I agree it's still a terrible movie.

Go to forum: Off Topic

232 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The Way, Way Back. Probably my favorite movie of the year so far.

http://d97a3ad6c1b09e180027-5c35be6f174b10f62347680d094e609a.r46.cf2.rackcdn.com/banner-the-way-way-back-banner-the-way-way-back-banner_1.jpg

Sam Rockwell really brought it in this one. He had some great writing behind him, and was absolutely perfect for the role. This was the funniest I've seen him. Liam James played an fantastic awkwardly quiet teenager. It was so beautifully uncomfortable to watch - never really knowing what to say, so just not saying anything most of the time, and being known as the "quiet one," or the "depressed one". I've totally been there, and he did an amazing job with it. And Steve Carell played a very solid future stepdouche.

Great writing/directing job by Jim Rash and Nat Faxon. There were a couple of conversational interchanges that felt a little too fast and witty to be believable, where it felt like I was watching an episode of Community (coincidence, Mr. Rash?)...

But it only felt that way once or twice. And the pacing was very good. I can say that my smily muscles hardly got any breaks through the entire first half, and the same goes for my feely muscles in the second half. All the actors were great, including Rash and Faxon in their minor roles.

Highly recommended.

Go to forum: Off Topic

233 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Squiggly_P wrote:

But it's not "Seven" it's "Se7en".

Se-seven-en

I always make sure to say it that way, haha.

Go to forum: Off Topic

234 Reply by Sam F

(23 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Praying for you, Praxus (not sarcasm).

Go to forum: Off Topic

235 Reply by Sam F

(34 replies, posted in Off Topic)

  Show
Yeah, it felt to me like they cut the ending short. They didn't really go into what happened as a result of everyone becoming a citizen of Elysium. And I think it's probably because they couldn't think of an outcome that was both logical and happy for the world. When the movie ended, all I could think was that the worst was inevitably still ahead for everyone.

So those ships went back to Earth to get the sick people. That's a LOT of people. How are they going to manage that many people, all landing in at once? Also, since people on Earth already had the ability to fly up there on their own, that means more than just the sick people would make their way up, uncontested. Riots would ensue in Elysium. It makes the most sense to me that Earth would stay the same, while Elysium would become just as crappy, with everyone eventually leaving. Yes, it's justice, but it still sucks for everyone.

I was confused as to who was technically in charge of Elysium after the reboot. Was it still President Patel? Did Spider make himself the President? The police robot just called him a "citizen," so I couldn't tell. And that's kind of a big deal.

Also I feel like if Elysium were to provide some of those healing machines to Earth they'd have had a lot less trouble with people trying to break in. I guess it could have been a way of trying to keep the population down there though. But maybe if they put a very limited amount of the machines on Earth then that would keep the struggles down there.

Go to forum: Off Topic

236 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Yeah, the only Saw movie I saw was the third one. It was a bit much. I'd be interested to see the first one though.

Go to forum: Off Topic

237 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just saw The Conjuring. I'm not a big fan of horror, but I thought this one was really well done.

It was the most down-to-earth representation of characters such as these that I've seen. I'm talking about the Warrens. The only thing I found peculiar about them was that though they were Christians, they never once prayed to God or Jesus, or even praised his name in the film. I just figured that especially Christians so involved with the supernatural would display their faith and dependence on a somewhat constant basis in their daily lives. Sure, they're concern about demons was clear, but I don't think they had any particularly positive words to say about God in the entire film. Ya know, the one who shooed off demons for them... But that's an element that's lacking in pretty much every haunting film. Takes me out of it slightly.

It probably didn't bother most people though. It just got to me a little because they were so close to TOTALLY nailing it. Instead, they mostly nailed it. Hey, I'll take it.

http://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2013/the_kidd_pic_database/the-conjuring-poster-1.jpg

Go to forum: Off Topic

238 Reply by Sam F

(53 replies, posted in Off Topic)

auralstimulation wrote:

Would YOU wanna hang around a young, mopey Aragorn for the rest of your days?

Well, if it's between that and walking across the wilderness with 13 dwarves who hate me, only to get blazed by a dragon... I don't know.

Go to forum: Off Topic

239 Reply by Sam F

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Rob wrote:

Still works the second time around. The jokes land, and so few comedies these days have a romantic subplot in which I actually care whether they to get together at the end. Anna Kendrick is surprisingly good at playing something of a curmudgeon. Also, if John Michael Higgins and Liz Banks read the phonebook as the characters they play in this movie, they'd probably make me laugh.

I 50% agree with 100% of that.

Go to forum: Off Topic

240 Reply by Sam F

(48 replies, posted in Episodes)

Trey wrote:

And hey look at this - just today Spike Lee decided to give it a try.

Well, Spike Lee sure seems full of himself...

Go to forum: Episodes

241 Reply by Sam F

(1,649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Can't believe these haven't been posted here yet.

Go to forum: Off Topic

242 Reply by Sam F

(956 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Okay. So it's up to the mother to decide whether or not it's best to kill her baby. Got it. But it's different once the kid pops out. We do need laws from the state against that, because that's immoral.

Alas. Kittens all around.

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16000000/Cute-Kitten-kittens-16096836-1280-800.jpg

Go to forum: Off Topic

243 Reply by Sam F

(956 replies, posted in Off Topic)

The argument against abortion has nothing to do with what the woman does to her body. I think everyone is fine with that. The abortion argument ultimately rests on one question:

Is it a person?

Because if it is, then the effects on the woman's body becomes secondary to the death of the other person. And even if we say we're "almost certain" it's not a person, is it worth taking that chance?

Robbing an innocent person of their entire life, no matter the "expected" quality, is much worse than whatever the mother would have to go through. I don't need to be a woman to make that call. Now, I'm not belittling what the mother goes through at all, and of course a lot of the time the pregnancy isn't her fault. But that doesn't justify killing a person.

Go to forum: Off Topic

244 Reply by Sam F

(53 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I'm really looking forward to seeing all the new characters from all the different areas of Middle-earth. In AUJ, the only noteworthy characters that weren't already in LotR were young Bilbo, Radagast, and the dwarves; and Thorin and Balin seemed to be the only ones with any sort of depth. Azog I don't really consider a character. More like an annoying CGI vengeance machine. The Goblin King had some spunk, but he really didn't do much. Maybe there will be more of him in the extended cut.

In the coming films we'll see Beorn, Tauriel, Thranduil, Bard & son, the master of Laketown, Dain & crew, the Necromancer/Sauron...

Oh yeah. SMAUG.

Among others. Can't say I have my hopes too high, but I'm still excited.

Go to forum: Off Topic

245 Reply by Sam F

(53 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Go to forum: Off Topic

246 Reply by Sam F

(162 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Xtroid wrote:

lol


http://i.imgur.com/bzlHzDq.jpg?1

Go to forum: Off Topic

247 Reply by Sam F

(162 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Rob wrote:

SPOILER Show

* Let’s have a sexy little first-kiss makeout session while the fresh ruins of a major metropolitan area smolder all around us. Yes, Lois, it is all down hill after a first kiss. And it's already downhill for the thousands of human beings who surely perished moments ago from the intergalactic warfare that toppled every building in sight. Yep, this is the perfect setting for a first smooch. Is it me, or was them kissing, there, at that moment, just plain perverse? (It's like in Team America, when the characters are talking about their love lives and who "has feelings" for whom while they are literally shooting missiles and blowing up terrorists.)

  Show
YES. Also that whole time I was thinking that was a total rip off of SPEED.

Go to forum: Off Topic

248 Reply by Sam F

(162 replies, posted in Off Topic)

  Show
LotR is to endings as MoS is to expositions, and Star Trek is to lens flares as MoS is to super quick zooms in action sequences (which annoyed the crap out of me). Did Snyder just feel the urge to pull a quick shaky zoom followed by a focus pull in almost EVERY epic action shot? Good grief. I can tolerate those shots, but only in moderation and when they're used appropriately.

I did not like this movie. It just seemed like a great big mess to me. I think I smiled twice throughout it, at least when you don't count the times that I was laughing at silly dialogue. Not that it was necessarily riddled with it, but there were some moments that I couldn't keep a straight face through.

  Show
"You love these people so much............................... "
I kept waiting for him to say ".... then why don't you marry them?!?!"

This was a movie that, to me, was too long and yet not long enough. Scenes needed more breathing time. They just sort of all blurred together. By the end it had all felt so rushed, but at the same time I couldn't wait to just get to the end. Maybe this should have been a two-parter?

  Show
And the scene where Zod takes over seemingly every screen in the world bothered me. How exactly did he do that? He just got to Earth. So now he just knows how to tap into every sort of man-made wireless network out there? Does he even have a camera? Or a text generator of some sort? And if he can do all that then why does it have to be all fuzzy and hard to make out? Oh, because it's more creepy that way? Yeah... I wasn't feeling it.

I don't know, maybe I'm crazy. Maybe I was just tired and grumpy because it was after midnight and I haven't had much sleep lately. But I was disappointed.

Go to forum: Off Topic

249 Reply by Sam F

(119 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I had forgotten about how in the production vlogs they talked about bringing more color into the Mirkwood set because "the Red cameras tend to eat color." They may have gone a little too far...

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b44/timdps/Mirkwood.jpg

Here they talk about the colors in Mirkwood starting around 6:15.

PJ: "In the movie they won't look anything like that. They'll be graded down and you'll just get the barest hint of color in the finished film."

Eh... Ish.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7383/9021654445_8bebddb433_o.png

Go to forum: Off Topic

250 Reply by Sam F

(119 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Doctor Submarine wrote:

I still can't put my finger on why the visuals look so much worse than LOTR. Is it because they're more cartoony?

I think a lot of it is that they're trying to make the colors in every shot look absolutely perfect and amazing. I bet you could take any frame from that trailer and it would look beautiful. As a result it just doesn't look real. And of course they've gone overboard with the CG as well.

0:48 looked to be the scene where the colors popped the least, and it was a nice two-second break for me.

Go to forum: Off Topic