Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Of the ten films on your list Frazz,I have seen four.
Zombieland- (huge suprise I saw that huh?) and of course I thought it was great.
The Wrestler-I really enjoyed this film,Mickey Rourke is, IMO,underapreciated as an actor,but he delivers a great preformance.
Star Trek-I didn't hate this film as much as some others did,in fact I didn't "hate"it at all, I'm a fan of STOS,grew up watching it and all that,but I'm not a "trekie",sure I rolled my eyes a few times while watching this film and it was obviously not a "fan" film,but it wasn't total crap.
Drag me to Hell-this film irratated the feth out of me,basicly becuase it had the potential to be a cool movie but choked 30 minutes in to the film and never seemed to recover,it could have been ALOT better...and we saw the ending coming a mile away.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
I was not a big fan of Zombieland really. It really started to lose me at the end of it. Stuff happened, zombies ran, there was a zombie clown (that was awesome), and... umm... wait, it just ended there? What?
... Oh well, Murray was awesome.
District nine was great, I enjoyed it much more than Avatar, which killed itself with it's own hype.
Star trek just sucked, and that has been covered pretty well so far.
I watched a bunch of other stuff that was decent... WATCHMEN! Good flick. Watch it.
IntoTheRain wrote:I really don't see how anyone can say that Star Trek destroyed 30 years of canon. At what point was it unfaithful to the characters? Where does it not comply with Canon? Effects driven? There are what? 2 battles in the whole thing?
They blew up Vulcan...?
Then old man Spock makes the speech about them being on an entirely new timeline. So all bets are off and everything we watched since is a lie... Or, y'know, Abrams can feth off and die.
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!!!!!1!!!!
Thats the whole point...its an entirely new continuity. The events of an alternate timeline do not undo the effects of the original, it just pans out differently than the first time. None of which tramples on Canon.
Tyyr wrote:Star Trek was a bad movie all on its own without dragging a discussion about it's effect on canon into it. It was rushed, they just flung the crew together with justifications that went from flimsy to down right insane just to have the original cast back together in time for the final battle. Scotty just beams onto the ship and they make him cheif engineer? They actually let the cadet stay a captain when he hasn't even finished the academy? What about the regular helmsman for the Enterprise? What does the Federation do, play finder's keepers with duty assignments? The villian was incomprehensible and cliche at the same time. "My family died so I'm gonna make everyone pay!" Is cliche, doing it to kill off the people who were trying to help you and failed along with everyone else but not really because you're going back in time to kill all their great grandparents is incomprehensible, as is the fact that rather than take his ship, destroy the dangerous star now, then turn over his advanced tech over to the Romulans in his time and watch a safe Romulus dominate space. Again, incomprehensible. They were shooting for a Khan and they made another Sybok.
Some aspects of it were great, like the first ten minutes of it. The same could be said of Generations. They both pretty much panned out the same way in terms of quality, though XI did it with a lot more lens flares than VII.
Most of the posts the cast filled were killed off during the film. The Redshirt that dies on the mining platform was the chief engineer Scotty replaced. I don't even think the original helmsman was on the Enterprise during the mission. The only real points you can make for it being contrived is Kirk's promotion and the crew getting together so quickly. Both are necessary in order for any Star Trek movie.
I also never understood how people argue that the villian was cliche. Read the comic that goes with the story, it explains pretty much every problem you have with the story.
IntoTheRain wrote: The only real points you can make for it being contrived is Kirk's promotion and the crew getting together so quickly. Both are necessary in order for any Star Trek movie.
This. The exceptional nature of the Enterprise's crew has always been a central component of the Star Trek mythos. The Kirk character is highly implausible in the context of a modern military setting, and remains so within the Federation; which is really the whole point.
IntoTheRain wrote:
I also never understood how people argue that the villian was cliche. Read the comic that goes with the story, it explains pretty much every problem you have with the story.
The villain was cliche, but certainly seemed like an accurate representation of someone who lacked sanity. Once you accept that he was mentally imbalanced all criticism based on the fact that he acted irrationally simply misses the point. That said, they could have added a few minutes to Nimoy's explanation of the events which lead to his arrival in order to clarify the amount of time that passed between Romulus' destruction, and his creation of the black hole.
Also, the comic doesn't help the movie. If you need to add a explanatory pamphlet to a movie, then the movie was poorly conceived. However, it wasn't necessary here.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Sebster's best 10 movies of 2009
(in no particular order)
Public Enemies - very accurate, no frills approach to an iconic US myth. Also with tommy guns!
Inglorious Basterds - You can take or leave the movie references and the meta-commentary on the morality of war movies, and just enjoy the cracking good story and wonderful performances. Landa is hands down the best villain we've seen in a long time.
Up - The first 15 minutes is a complete movie and a better one than most things that came out this year. The rest of it is pretty good fun as well. Squirrel!
The Informant - A really interesting character study. I'm not sure if you'd enjoy it more or less knowing the true story it is based on, as for me so much of the fun came from the surprise turns.
Avatar - The technology is amazing but at the core of this movie is a classic story told with great discipline.
Moon - This is a really solid little film. Worth seeing because outside of the Coen Bros small scale, tightly constructed films like this just aren't made any more.
Anvil: The Story of Anvil - I'm a guy who doesn't like much heavy metal, but this is just a great movie that'll tell you a lot about the music industry.
Star Trek - People rave about the effects (which were great) and rubbish the script (which was contrived) but the real fun in this movie is the characters, each role is wonderfully cast, capturing the essence of the original characters almost perfectly.
Balibo - This film doesn't follow the events completely but it strikes right at the truth of the story, five Australian journalists were killed reporting on the invasion of East Timor, and our government did nothing. Powerful stuff.
A Serious Man - The Coen Bros do it again. Probably their most personal story, it's about a Jewish professor going through some tough times, looking answers in his faith, his friends and family, and coming out even more lost. The tone is bleak but also very funny.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
I must admit Public Enemies qwas quite goodf. It wasn't Mann's best but the story was often faithful to true events, especially the shootout at the house.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:I must admit Public Enemies qwas quite goodf. It wasn't Mann's best but the story was often faithful to true events, especially the shootout at the house.
Yeah, it's not as good as Heat, but not many films are.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Tyyr wrote:Star Trek was a bad movie all on its own without dragging a discussion about it's effect on canon into it.
Most of the posts the cast filled were killed off during the film. The Redshirt that dies on the mining platform was the chief engineer Scotty replaced. I don't even think the original helmsman was on the Enterprise during the mission. The only real points you can make for it being contrived is Kirk's promotion and the crew getting together so quickly. Both are necessary in order for any Star Trek movie.
I don't recall anywhere in the movie it being stated that the redshirt was the chief engineer. Even if he was there's a thing called a chain of command, the next person in it becomes the chief engineer not some random guy who appears on the ship. Yes, I know the original helmsman wasn't on the Enterprise, however when he's back in condition he gets his post back and Sulu goes back to being the back up. Sulu ably demonstrated his ability when he forgot to take the ship out of park.
Kirk's getting promoted isn't just contrived, words fail me for how utterly insane going from a cadet in the academy to captain of the flagship of fleet is. Contrived would be how the first officer of another ship got promoted over someone else to get the captaincy. This is just so out there as to be utter non-sense.
Yes, the crew needs to get together for this movie. I am fully aware of that. The method in which it was done was rushed and contrived. That's the problem. The way they were brought together was just idiotic. Really, this script reads like two guys in a bar saying "Wouldn't it be cool," and writing it all down on the back of a cocktail napkin.
I also never understood how people argue that the villian was cliche. Read the comic that goes with the story, it explains pretty much every problem you have with the story.
If you have to read a comic book in order for a movie to make any sense then the movie has utterly failed. The movie should and is being judged as a stand alone piece of work given that the vast majority of the audience is totally unaware of the comic's existence.
Nero was cliche, horribly. Now if you want to say he was insane, ok, but to me that just makes him that much less interesting. "Oh, yeah he did something stupid and non-sensical, haha he's just crazy like that!" Lazy ass writing. Hang me by my short and curlies for saying this but Sorin was a more interesting villan.
Now I own the movie. I bought it right after it came out. I like parts of it quite a bit. I enjoy the styling of the new Enterprise, the way they made it MUCH larger. I like Chekov, Sulu, Spock, and Bones. It had great visuals and moments. Eric Bana had the chops to make a pathetic character at least sound alright even if everything about the character just sucked. None of that changes the fact that as a movie it just sucks.
Frazzled wrote:I must admit Public Enemies qwas quite goodf.
Watched it with the wife two nights ago and we both enjoyed it. It did make for a very interesting movie and I just enjoy Johnny Depp on screen.
mattyrm wrote: I will bro fist a toilet cleaner.
I will chainfist a pretentious English literature student who wears a beret.
I am both selfish and chaotic. I value self-gratification and control; I want to have things my way, preferably now. At best, I'm entertaining and surprising; at worst, I'm hedonistic and violent.
