Hulk Poodles. I rest my case.

402

(36 replies, posted in Episodes)

I tend to agree. Especially given Trey didn't even make it through the movie when he tried to watch it on his own. A real pet peeve of mine is people pausing movies to go do other things, or texting/doing-other-things, while a movie is on. If you're gonna watch a movie, sit down and fucking watch it, and give it the full 2 hours.
I've had movies I hated completely turn it all around and win me over in the last 30 minutes.

Don't mean to single out Trey, but this whole trend I've noticed in the internet age where movies are just a thing you throw on in the background irritates the crap out of me, it's disrespectful to the movies and to the filmmakers.

Ignatiy has a great piece out at the AV-Club http://www.avclub.com/articles/todays-b … ll,104394/

It basically encapsulates everything I've been saying about the DTV action genre. Really nice to see a mainstream critic shining a spotlight on Universal Soldier: Regeneration and Day of Reckoning.

Potentially huge 3rd act spoilers for Noah:

SPOILER Show
I heard act 3 is Noah deciding humanity isn't worth saving and trying to wipe out the human population of the arc

Speaking of Noah, I have 0 interest in biblical movies, but now that I've been spoiled on what the 3rd act of Aranofsky's movie is about, dammit, I may have to see it

406

(36 replies, posted in Episodes)

Also watch Rope, Rope is fun. Folks who know better than me please correct me, but I believe that had the longest continuous takes until we hit the 90s, right? It goes for like 20 minutes at a time without cutting, right? Directors had done extended takes since the very early days, but pretty sure that was the first time someone tried to push it that far (though it is a bit silly at times with the way it tries to hide the cuts)

407

(93 replies, posted in Off Topic)

No, it's far better than the Transformerses, which are complete and utter garbage. Honestly, as much as I hate to say it, the closest analogue in that respect is probably Pearl Harbor, which is full of awful characterization and dialogue, but the hour-long mid-movie attack sequence is the best thing Michael Bay's ever directed and pretty goddamned impressive. Pacific Rim is still better, if only for being 40 min shorter, but if I was to stack it up to any  one movie in Bay's filmography, it would be that one. Similar strengths, similar weaknesses, similar structure (boring melodrama for an hour, amazing mid-movie setpiece, kinda forgettable conclusion with cheesy ending), though Pearl Harbor is much more in bad taste since it's exploiting a national tragedy.

Sidenote: There's a really damn good 1.5 hour fan-edit of Pearl Harbor to be made, if you cut down the melodrama and end it right after the attack

408

(93 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just to clarify so you don't lump me in with the other detractors here, my problem with the movie is in no way logic consistency related. I think nit-picking like that is indeed kind of a waste of time given the premise of this movie. The issue is entirely related to me not caring or liking the protagonists and their shitty dialogue, and thinking the movie is entirely too light on action for me to enjoy it despite that. 1 really good set-piece doesn't justify a 2+ hour movie, if it did, most of Michael Bay's movies would be considered great too.

409

(4 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

I think it's just the dialogue in the car specifically feels really unnatural and on-the-nose. I like the cross-cutting and what they're going for, but if him and his wife drove to the airport in silence, it would play much better.

More importantly, from a character standpoint, it's crucial because it cements for Sandra how the counter momentum in zero-G works. Clooney un-tethering gives her just enough push to drift back towards the station. Then later at the end, when she's got the empty fire-extinguisher and is just out of reach of the hatch, she chucks it to give herself that extra boost and makes it. I love that moment so much.

411

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I maintain Pacific Rim is terrible and the internet is crazy for trying to defend it. The writing is awful and the action isn't good enough or frequent enough to make up for it.

Ya, I think it counts, most people seemed to like it. I remain one of them until I rewatch it and find out if I was wrong. It's kinda the Marvel superhero film for people who hate Marvel superhero films, so it's perfectly aimed at me.

413

(4 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

I pretty much agree with everything you said, and love the movie.

However, was it just me or was the opening scene with Hanks just terrible?
The whole bit where he's talking with his wife in the car, and the dialogue, the accent, and the acting are all really bad. It's really bizarre, like it was inserted out of a different movie or something. I distinctly remember being worried for about 2 minutes, and then the movie turns around and is great for the rest of it. 
You don't need it in the movie really either (though I understand the hesitation at cutting Catherine Keener out of your movie).

Outside of that, Hanks is great though, and the end of the movie is an amazing piece of acting.

414

(346 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Whenever SpaceX decides to go public, buy ALL the stock

415

(45 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Ya, but what good Sandra roles have there been in the last decade? She hasn't had a Panic Room or a King Kong like the others you mentioned do. Outside of Speed and Demolition Man, she's mostly done crap, so ya, it's a bit of a surprise when she's in an awesome movie all of a sudden and totally nails the part. Not an indictment of her as an actress, she's just been stuck with bad material.

416

(45 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Ya, she's as good in this as Jodie was in Contact, it's practically a revelation. Man I hope this kicks off a trend for her and she does more strong dramatic roles now instead of awful romantic comedies. She seriously hasn't been this good since Speed.

417

(569 replies, posted in Creations)

If you're looking for more stuff to trim, you're welcome to cut my 3-sec part. Doesn't really add anything, I don't like how I shot it, plus we've already got Gregory representing Seattle.

I'll actually sorta agree with fireproof to an extent. I enjoy the movie fine, the vibe, music, manic-energy is a lot of fun, but I think it's the kind of movie you love when you're 15-22, and after that you kinda grow out of it. It's just trying too hard and is super in your face.

Put another way, Fight Club feels like the work of a talented angry adolescent lashing out, and Zodiac is the work of a restrained master filmmaker, and I'm really glad Fincher moved in that direction.

I didn't think hating Glee was unpopular, but if it is, I'll chime in and say that Glee is some of the worst, most unwatchable garbage I've ever seen in my life.

As far as mainstream unpopular....hmmm.

Whedon is massively over-rated. There I said it. Almost everything he writes, outside of some of Buffy and most of Firefly, is written like a sitcom. It's near-constant bland jokes and safe references, the kind of stuff you would expect a laugh-track to run over. Characters being constantly snarky != good writing, and it just irritates the shit out of me. He really is a poor-man's Shane Black, with the distinction being that Shane Black brings a dark edge to his material, there's an under-current of anger and personality that comes through in his writing, whereas Whedon just goes for the safe vanilla version of everything. Is he terrible? No, not by a long shot, but this internet hero-worship really needs to stop.

420

(255 replies, posted in Creations)

Think I've gotta drop out of the running here, sorry. Between work, school, and post-production on my own project, I just won't have the time that this project deserves.

Damn, I completely forgot that came out this year (That tells you how forgettable and disappointing it was). Ya, if there's any noms that are locks I would think it'd be Gravity and Elysium, the others are kinda up in the air. Hobbit/Pacific Rim/Oblivion could all get noms, but I could just as easily see each of them getting snubbed, so who knows. Man of Steel/Star Trek might be in the mix too, but I kinda think those 2 will fall by the wayside as they both feel very "been there done that".

I think we might wanna move this stuff to a seperate thread as this is turning into the bake-off prediction thread all of a sudden.

Fucking christ they roto'd this entire movie. Those poor bastards.

Also, they mention full on cg face-replacements, and I'm wondering which sequences that was done for.

Replace Iron Man 3 with Oblivion and you'd likely be correct

I was gonna say, it's funny how they could literally play any random 10 minute chunk of this movie and be guaranteed the oscar

hmm, good to have some confirmation at least. Also, what about Sandra's foot, does it clearly show them as now being stationary? Because the ropes are elastic, and it looked like she was continuing to stretch the rope, which would imply that he still had momentum dragging her, which I could buy.

Either way, it doesn't really bother me in the slightest. I didn't pick up on it during the movie, and wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't specifically pointed out to me.

Fireproof - to your point, imagine Avatar, except the stuff being animated is stuff that currently exists in the real world and we can relate too. This movie is 95% animation (most shots I'm pretty sure just Sandra's face is live action), and it all looks photo-real and stunning.

The stuff that really gets me is the interior shots, I have 0 clue how they did that stuff. It seems like there's gotta be practical ISS stuff there for Sandra to interact with, but when she's flying through the station casually, there's no way that's practical....right? This is the first movie in a LOOOOONG time where I'm utterly flabbergasted at how some of this stuff was filmed. This movie shouldn't exist.