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.

I am excited to see this. Finally something not from Jurrasic family. Also a good actor there.

Looks like fun.

Looks like Hollywood are still managing to scrape the bottom of that barrel, surprised they still have any nails left to scrap with.

Why? At least it's a different take on the "crashed on a planet full of aliens" trope, rather than just being another "He's crashed on a planet full of aliens".

Bonus points earned that he's not some Riddick-level badass.

Wish the trailer hadn't given away the fact that this is set in the past. Still, might be a fun movie.

I saw the trailer when it first dropped, and it shares a basic premise with the film Outlander starring Jim Caviezel. While this won't win any Oscars, I give it a 50/50 chance of being either a total bomb at worst or a guilty pleasure for some at best.

 Ahtman wrote:
Wish the trailer hadn't given away the fact that this is set in the past. Still, might be a fun movie.

While I agree with this on principle, I have my doubts that this particular revelation would have been hard to see coming. And I say that as someone who doesn't try to figure things out while watching a movie.

 Ghaz wrote:
I saw the trailer when it first dropped, and it shares a basic premise with the film Outlander starring Jim Caviezel. While this won't win any Oscars, I give it a 50/50 chance of being either a total bomb at worst or a guilty pleasure for some at best.

That's what I thought about it reminding me of Outlander, too!

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Why? At least it's a different take on the "crashed on a planet full of aliens" trope, rather than just being another "He's crashed on a planet full of aliens".

Bonus points earned that he's not some Riddick-level badass.

Mostly because 'humans are aliens that crashed on prehistoric earth' isn't a particularly different take. Its a trope in its own right. To the point that Douglas Adams was mocking it for being a dull trope a couple decades back.
And its still just human w/ guns vs dinosaur, just a slightly different way of setting up the absurdity

Plus the bonus creepiness of the film possibly setting up an Adam & Eve scenario with this kid.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Why? At least it's a different take on the "crashed on a planet full of aliens" trope, rather than just being another "He's crashed on a planet full of aliens".

Bonus points earned that he's not some Riddick-level badass.

I like Dinosaurs, just starting to get tired of how lazy Hollywood is at using them, any excuse to shoe horn them in, and it is always the same Dinosaurs. They roamed the planet for 165 million years, which produced a hige wealth of species to explore, yet Hollywood just keep using the T-Rex over and over again.

That and how about exploring some other epoch of Earth's history? Dinosaurs have been done to death.

This movie's premise doesn't make any sense to me.

 stonehorse wrote:
Looks like Hollywood are still managing to scrape the bottom of that barrel, surprised they still have any nails left to scrap with.

More original movies get made today than at any point in our history.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This movie's premise doesn't make any sense to me.

 stonehorse wrote:
Looks like Hollywood are still managing to scrape the bottom of that barrel, surprised they still have any nails left to scrap with.

More original movies get made today than at any point in our history.

Not by Hollywood, however. There was a recent video clip where Matt Damon talked about why Hollywood is all about those big named franchise films now, with the occasional venture into something new and fresh.

Edit, found the clip.

It's hard to believe the part of the industry that invests hundreds of millions of dollars into a film plays it safer than indie developers but here we are.

Avatar 2: The Avataring is another banal but technically brilliant film and is making big money while smaller original films still don't come close. Some do well, like Everything Everywhere All At Once do alright but still not close to generic audience numbers of sequel or franchise film. Babylon is another interesting film but almost nobody is going to it. X and Pearl are great little horror films but in the bigger scheme still haven't remotely come close to the bank that the people bloviate about being unoriginal dreck. I mean, it is unoriginal dreck, but very often the people complaining also aren't going to the original films either.

A lot of the time it is hard to find a picture house showing those original films. I had to drive to a picture house several counties away to watch 'Sorry to Bother you', all the local picture houses were showing back to back CGI superhero garbage and latest kids film on nearly every screen.

Same goes with Everything Everywhere All At Once, really wanted to see it, but no where near me seemed to be playing it.

I'm not against people wanting to watch rubbish films (people should be free to watch what they want), but when they are all that is played it makes it hard to watch the good films, which becomes a self confirming prophecy about their poor financial returns.

 stonehorse wrote:
A lot of the time it is hard to find a picture house showing those original films. I had to drive to a picture house several counties away to watch 'Sorry to Bother you', all the local picture houses were showing back to back CGI superhero garbage and latest kids film on nearly every screen.

Same goes with Everything Everywhere All At Once, really wanted to see it, but no where near me seemed to be playing it.

I'm not against people wanting to watch rubbish films (people should be free to watch what they want), but when they are all that is played it makes it hard to watch the good films, which becomes a self confirming prophecy about their poor financial returns.

I remember a time many many moons ago I was working in a Cinema. At the time, we’d been showing Meet the Fokkers for weeks. Management managed a single showing Downfall.

We should be seeing a ton of Oscarbait and counter-programming movies hitting the theaters. Hopefully some of them will stay in theaters long enough to see them. The last few indie movies I wanted to see in theaters were done and streaming by the time I could arrange a day to go to the theater.

On the flip-side, you can still find these great movies on streaming. We just started RRR, and it’s already an amazing movie experience.

 Ahtman wrote:

Babylon is another interesting film but almost nobody is going to it.

Probably because a 3 hr movie about partying in golden age Hollywood sounds less interesting than watching blue aliens blow gak up in glorious 3D.

I saw nothing in any trailers for Babylon that sparked a desire to waste my time/$ on it theatre wise.
Avatar though? Yeah, I went to see it for the FX on an IMaX screen. An experience I just can't duplicate in my living room.
Babylon? It'll stream eventually & I can watch it while building/[ainting minis some evening.

The critics I watch all panned Babylon. As in, “Go see the new Puss in Boots movie instead. It’s a better movie.”

Apparently the movie Babylon is as incoherent and excessive as its ads made it look.

I don’t think I’ve heard of Babylon.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I remember a time many many moons ago I was working in a Cinema. At the time, we’d been showing Meet the Fokkers for weeks. Management managed a single showing Downfall.

Well that is grim.

65 looks like it could be fun. I'll wait for reviews before seeing it in theatres.

The ammunition counter on that weapon may not be very tactical but it is neat looking.

So now we know what made the dinosaurs go extinct?

 AduroT wrote:
I don’t think I’ve heard of Babylon.

It is definitely not for everyone, nor is it trying to be, but if it tickles your fancy you'll pleased as punch and other colloquialisms.

People often say critics aren't worth listening to but then you'll turn around and see people argue ague that critics didn't like a movie so it probably isn't good. Weird.

1. There are critics worth listening to, although those may vary from person to person. If not for critics, I would not have seen Everything Everywhere, RRR or Barbarian. Ok, they were wrong about Barbarian, but I think I see where they were coming from.

2. The ads for Babylon looked awful. I (and apparently most other movie goers) we never going to see that movie unless it got strong reviews in the face of those ads. So, since I haven’t seen it and know no one who has, who else would I get an opinion about it from?


Sounds like you have seen it and enjoyed it, so please tell us what you liked about Babylon. What are its strengths?

I never said that there were no critics worth listening to just noting the pattern of "hurr critics bad" then "well the critics have been panning it" (or "it is getting critical praise" for other direction) and it just gets a little old.

Babylon is a bit of an odd duck. I would describe it as a mix of a 70s auteur film and an midnight exploitation flick. Much like either of those types you'll either be into it or completely turned off. Honestly considering the nature of it I am surprised it got made. Still it also seems like a movie that will get a critical reevaluation a decade or two from now.

The cinematography is well done and some of the shots with all the films being made within the movie had to take quite a bit of coordination. The performances are good, with some being very good, but again contextualized that the whole thing is a bit bonkers.

Heavens Gate + Caligula

Are the same people saying critics are bad while also relying on critics? Or are those two distinct groups?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are the same people saying critics are bad while also relying on critics? Or are those two distinct groups?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Just a general observation and this isn't really a "call someone out" kind of thread.

I have no use or interest in film critics because:

* They have as much conscious or unconscious bias as any viewer even when they pretend not to - often more.
* They are not me so don't enjoy what I do.
* Film quality is purely subjective.
* All end up watching and "judging" film they will never like because its their job and they get paid for it
* Some tailor their reviews to their audience
* Some receive income, money, privalges depending on the nature of their review.
* Some obviously just copy paste

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
This movie's premise doesn't make any sense to me.

 stonehorse wrote:
Looks like Hollywood are still managing to scrape the bottom of that barrel, surprised they still have any nails left to scrap with.

More original movies get made today than at any point in our history.

Yeah, on YouTube. Maybe in other countries. Hollywood certainly isn't making them. This isn't all THAT original. This one is Pitch Black meets Jurassic Park with a time travel twist.

Still, if it's well written and acted it can still be entertaining. If not, if it tries to get by on special effects and 'look! cool dinosaurs!' it could be pure cringe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
So now we know what made the dinosaurs go extinct?

I would expect the disease organisms these two leave behind in their waste products (or in their bodies if they get eaten) would have a pretty nasty impact on local populations. And if any of those wind up being highly contagious.

Of course, the opposite is also true; a local disease that hasn't been around for millions of years that modern humans have no immunity to could do our plucky heroes in rather swiftly too. But... that would be a rather boring story.


On the critic issue, find a couple who have liked past movies that you like for the reasons you liked them, and that'll be a decent baseline for you. Season that with the advice of your friends with similar tastes. And never be afraid to toss the lot aside if a new movie really intrigues you; your tastes are YOURS and no one else's. No one else is going to be 100% on board with everything you like.