651

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

avatar wrote:
bullet3 wrote:

It was on the edge I guess.

Personally, I would prefer if the FIYH forums stayed away from more divisive topics, next thing you know we're gonna have political threads arguing idiology, and then we gradually lose what made these forums unique: people of all walks of life coming together to bitch about movies

You can blaspheme against my Saviour, spit on my church, and curse my Holy Relics, but don't you dare suggest Nolan is a hack.

Christopher Nolan can go straight to Hell, which I don't believe in!

652

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

PorridgeGun wrote:

http://i.imgur.com/cSAzAKx.jpg

6.5/10

You really need to elaborate on this one.

653

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I dunno, I think you guys kinda slipped right past the point. You mentioned how Seth Rogen and some of the other stars always play themselves. This Is The End opens with some douchebag fan asking Rogen when he's going to stop playing the same character over and over. The central comedic irony of the film is that most of these actors are playing roles very different from the ones they usually play...and the roles are themselves.

This Is The End has a fun, original premise, and I laughed a hell of a lot more during it than at The World's End. That's just me personally, though.

654

(649 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Faldor wrote:

Extended Edition sees the new year with the wrap up to that cliff hanger!

Best/Worst 2013 (part 2)

This Is The End is better than The World's End.


http://i.imgur.com/LALKw.gif

655

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Trey wrote:
pastormacman wrote:

And in life, experience usually trumps reason. You can think, and reason, and calculate all you want, but in the end the real world is what you experience.

And this is fascinating to me, because I believe the exact opposite.  As some folks (and I) like to say "The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".   And any prosecutor would trade ten eyewitness testimonies for one solid DNA result or clear fingerprint.

If I chose my beliefs based on experience, then - for example - I would believe Henry Cavill can fly.  Because I SAW HIM DO IT.   But reason tells me that he probably can't fly, because that contradicts every bit of relevant knowledge that we humans have accumulated thus far.    It's not "truth" unless it's true for everyone.   And the consensus is that Cavill doesn't actually fly, it was an illusion.  And there's actually a plausible real-world explanation for what I experienced - one that fits with the rest of the reality we all share.

Although I suppose I could then argue that all this talk about "visual effects" is merely an attempt by Satan to test my faith.   Spare me your "logic".  I saw the man fly, end of story!    And I am entitled to that belief in our society. 

But how much stock would you put in my decision-making abilities then?    Here, have a cookie.  ELVES MAKE THEM!

I'm mostly staying out of this thread, but I will say that this is what it ultimately comes down to for me. The Bible is proof of God like Harry Potter is proof of Dumbledore.

"But what about historical evidence of Jesus?" Yes, it's true that a man named Jesus most likely existed during that time period. There's historical evidence of Abraham Lincoln too, but I don't believe that he was a vampire hunter just because some book said so. And nothing else in the historical record indicates that vampires fought in the Civil War.

656

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Darth Praxus wrote:
Doctor Submarine wrote:

Five pages deep in a thread about religion, and no flame war. That's gotta be an internet record.

Has there ever been a flame war here? I haven't really actively used the forum until 2012, so I don't know its entire history.

Only one or two that I remember, and nothing that wasn't resolved.

657

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Five pages deep in a thread about religion, and no flame war. That's gotta be an internet record.

658

(373 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Dorkman wrote:

Not to mention that every religion's adherents say the exact same thing.

Pastor, a Muslim comes to you and says the exact thing you said here, verbatim except Quran instead of Bible. What is your reaction?

To be fair, the Muslim god is technically the same god as the Christian god and the Jewish god. "People of the Book," and so forth.

659

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

bullet3 wrote:

I thought it was pretty shit. Or at least, nearly all the blockbusters were either shit or disappointing. Up until November I'd have had a real tough time even coming up with 5 movies to fill out a top 5 list. There's been enough good stuff backloaded (and a few smaller gems earlier in the year) that it isn't a total wash, but I thought it was pretty poor on the whole.

I can name twenty FANTASTIC movies I saw this year, and less than ten truly awful ones. If you're only looking at blockbusters, then yeah, it wasn't a great year. But those are rarely the best movies of the year, and they're not going to 100% define 2013 when we look back on it.

660

(46 replies, posted in Episodes)

For those of you who have seen The Act of Killing, would you recommend seeing the Director's Cut or the theatrical cut first? I ask because the DC is significantly longer, so I'm curious if it's better to just watch that version.

661

(6 replies, posted in Episodes)

BigDamnArtist wrote:
HabeasPorpoise wrote:

Normally I'm morally opposed to people who put in a DVD and just watch certain scenes instead of watching the entire film.

Aaaand you just offended at least half the population of this forum.

In the case of this movie, can you really blame him?

662

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I thought that 2013 was a fantastic year. Compared to last year, which was mostly lame, the past 12 months were jam-packed with fantastic movies.

663

(6 replies, posted in Episodes)

I used to think that I liked this movie, and that it was underrated. It wasn't until the marathon that it dawned on me how bad it was. It's not just bad for a Potter movie, though. I think that it's the only film in the franchise that qualifies as a bad movie, period.

664

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just watched Anchorman for the first time before quickly driving to catch the day's last showing of the sequel. The first one is very clever and extremely funny. The second isn't as clever or funny, but it has some great Daily Show-style satire of 24-hour cable news. I like them both a lot.

665

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Rob wrote:

I know several people who thought they had their best-of list all sorted out--and then they saw HER. I've seen it twice already. It's a good one, friends.

I wish I lived in or near one of the five cities in America that's playing it. It's not going into wide release until the 10th of January. So I can't really put it on my list after I see it, even though I think it would probably make it on there.

666

(209 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Okay, I've seen pretty much every movie I wanted to see this year. Except Her, but that's not out near me until the 10th. Here's my final (probably) top 10.

1) Inside Llewyn Davis
2) 12 Years a Slave
3) All Is Lost
4) The Wolf of Wall Street
5) Upstream Color
6) Frances Ha
7) Blue is the Warmest Color
8) Short Term 12
9) Nebraska
10) Side Effects

667

(9 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Teague wrote:

Yeah, I think so.

I mean - frankly - I'm kinda bored by it either way. "Eh, not interested" bored, not "looking down on it" bored.

Yeah, it's clearly a "not for everyone" movie. But man, it was SO for me.

668

(9 replies, posted in Movie Stuff)

Teague wrote:

Great review.

...could you, uh, tell me what the movie was about? I didn't catch on to much of the subtext and metaphor stuff, I spent most of the movie writing the "'Llewyn' Look Tutorial for After Effects" in my head.

I tend not to get into most Coen stuff, if only because it seems like the major thing they like to do is character pieces, and if I'm not compelled by the character, the movie is just a slog for me. This was one of those cases. (Want some heresy? So was Lebowski.)

You mean the literal events of the plot? Or the more thematic "what's it about?" Here's the latter.

  Show
It's "about" a whole lot, of course. But here's the big one, in my opinion. You know those movies where there are two people who are meant to be together, and they split up for the second act but reunite happily at the end? Inside Llewyn Davis extends that second act to an entire movie. Llewyn is broken without his partner, and he is completely unable to find success by himself (there are no royalties on his solo record, Bud Grossman advises him to reunite with his partner, when he does collaborate with others he signs away his credit in order to get the cash faster, etc.) It explores the importance of relationships by showing a man who no longer has any. The closest he comes to making a true connection is in his relationship with the cat, and he abandons it later on. But as the end of the movie suggests, he's stuck in a cycle of loneliness.

I'm finding it hard to focus right now for some reason, but there's a lot more to be written I'm sure. Does that pretty much answer your question?

669

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

BBQ wrote:
Holden wrote:
Faldor wrote:

So if Matt Smith played...

SPOILER Show
the last Doctor
How come in season when
SPOILER Show
the astronaut shot him he had regeneration energy?

SEASON SIX ENDING AHOY:

SPOILER Show
He didn't. The Teselecta faked it so River would assume he was regenerating.

REAL SEASON SIX ENDING AHOY:

  Show
After painting themselves into a corner, the writers made up some bullshit in order to wipe away an illogical gordian knot of a plot line.

If you want a show with tight plotting and clever construction, where every seemingly insignificant detail ties into the larger plot and is a setup for something that happens later on...you're better off watching any given episode of Arrested Development. That show does in 22 minutes what Doctor Who couldn't handle in a whole season. DW is goofy sci-fi fun, but its boundless creativity has never really extended to concluding larger arcs.

670

(2,068 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Just got back from The Wolf of Wall Street. That movie is bananas. For the first half, I was sure that it was a vital piece of American cinema, a perfect comment on how the country behaves today. But the longer it went, the less convinced I became. It's still a great movie, and maybe even a necessary one. It's a movie about American excess that itself is incredibly excessive. Was that an intentional thematic choice? Scorsese is so brilliant that I might just give it to him.

671

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Aural Stimulation wrote:
Invid wrote:

All I want, with regard to Doctor Who, is the end of season long story arcs. Do two or three episode stories, sure, the equivalent of a 4 or 6 part classic story, but enough with having it all mean something. And can we have a non-Human companion again? Please?

Or how about 2 male companions? Maybe even make one of them sexually ambiguous. Something new!

Yeah, but then you have a show with no female regulars (assuming they've shut the book on River.) Although Rory was so good that it's hard to argue with.

672

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Aural Stimulation wrote:

  Show
I actually quite liked that they didn't do the long lingering regeneration effect and just "popped" right into Capaldi. I found it a refreshing change.

  Show
Completely agree. I thought it was hilariously unexpected. Also, it makes sense. The big dramatic regeneration stuff happened on top of the tower. He was just holding back the transformation for a few minutes so that he could say goodbye to Clara. No sense in repeating the effect.

673

(991 replies, posted in Off Topic)

*sobs*

Post-Sob Edit:

  Show
You know what I liked about this episode? It didn't have the plodding runtime or the crazily mawkish sentimentality of Tennant's exit. The Doctor goes out saving ordinary people, not saving the universe. That's what it's all about.

Also loved the tying-up of all of Eleven's loose plot threads regarding the Silence. It made his run feel self-contained (50th Anniversary shenanigans aside) and made the ending feel more final.

It moved a bit too quickly in the middle, though. And the deus ex machina at the end was WAY too easy, especially for Moffat. Seriously, that's all you've got?

"So Steven, how does he regenerate even though he's run out?"

"Uh...the Time Lords give him more. I dunno, my brain's pretty much dried up at this point."

674

(95 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I just got back. They should have called this movie The Hobbit: The Desolation of Sma- Hey, What Do You Think That Elf Chick Is Up To?

I didn't hate it. The pacing was much better than the first one. Same goes for the effects, mostly. There was one shot during the barrels sequence which looked like something out of a Gamecube cutscene from 2004. I was super annoyed by how obvious some of the effects were. Also, what was up with that random GoPro footage in the barrels sequence? Very distracting.

The Smaug scene was fucking phenomenal. Easily one of the best things I saw on screen this year in any movie. If only they didn't keep cutting away to boring subplots that I didn't care about. I actually really liked Tauriel, and her flirting with Kili was handled pretty well. But man oh man, PJ did his best to make me hate it. It was almost comical how many times he killed the tension of that scene by switching to Kili groaning on a table, or Gandalf doing something boring that I don't care about because I KNOW HE'S GOING TO LIVE. I know that the point of that stuff was to expand on the book and increase its scope, but it's not nearly as interesting as it needs to be.

So, I liked Smaug. He looked really scary. The whole climax in Erebor was like the Balrog scene times a thousand. The fight between Legolas and Bolg was pretty cool too. I was prepared to forgive literally any bloat in the first two thirds as long as they didn't screw up the dragon. And they didn't. But they couldn't leave that scene alone.

675

(135 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I just forgot that he recently shot a movie with Lars Von Trier. Maybe the craziness is contagious. Von Trier wears it better, though.