Rate the Last Film You've Seen
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 3 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2017, 12:19 AM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
(01-01-2017 08:03 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
Rogue One

I thought it was very well done. The pacing was brisk without being so fast you could not keep up, the story was fresh for a Star Wars film and overall this really felt like the Star Wars universe from another angle. The closest film I can think of to compare it to would be the Dirty Dozen (the american remake of Kurosawa's 7 Samurai).

5/7 perfect side-story set in an already amazing universe.

I thought The Magnificent Seven was the American remake of Seven Samurai. It did have a "The Dirty Dozen feel" to it, but that's because it had all the desperation of the "misfits on a suicide mission" from that film.

Nevertheless, I agree about the movie. It should be compared to Kurosawa.

I walked out of Rogue One absolutely blown away. This is what sci-fi (especially Star Wars) should be. It was not without its flaws, but to me this film was a master class in "this is what happens when you take a fantasy universe seriously, and make it feel lived-in".

The grittiness of the original, with the beat-up, battle-scarred, flown-and-repaired (that is, non-CGI) ships, battle scenes that were so gritty and that so successfully portrayed the fear of having Storm Troopers and AT-ATs overwhelming your position that it felt like Platoon or Saving Private Ryan... and a space battle that literally had me whooping out loud.

I can't believe they pulled it off. They captured the magic.

And I have to say that their marketing people utterly failed. I was completely unprepared for how good this film was. I'm having difficulty because I want to rank it above one of the original trilogy, but I can't decide which one.

They even avoided some of the sexist BS that was associated with most of the earlier films... there's a scene at the end that would have been an ideal "the cute female lead kisses the cute male lead for no realistic reason" toss-in, like sooo many American movies, and they didn't take the bait.

If you haven't seen it, go do so, even if you're not necessarily a fan of SW or sci-fi.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
02-01-2017, 12:45 AM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
-A lil spoilery-

Rogue One blew me away...the cgi was gorgeous, even if it was plasticky and obvious like on Tarkin...my sister wouldn't believe me until I showed her that the original actor had died more than two decades ago.

The story was also fairly decent, if a little jumpy at the beginning, but it smoothed out nicely and made me care about the cause for which the Rebels fought while at the same time realistically portraying the Rebels as not being all-good.

My favorite parts include the Death Star blowing up stuffs (loved the land tsunami), the force ninja guy, and the ending where the rebels are fleeing on a ship, Darth Vader'd just wrecked everyone, and the lights came on, kicking me in the nostalgia.

Ignorance is not to be ignored.

Check out my DA gallery! http://oo-kiri-oo.deviantart.com/gallery/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Loom's post
02-01-2017, 01:15 AM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
(02-01-2017 12:19 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  They even avoided some of the sexist BS that was associated with most of the earlier films... there's a scene at the end that would have been an ideal "the cute female lead kisses the cute male lead for no realistic reason" toss-in, like sooo many American movies, and they didn't take the bait.

See Also: Pacific Rim




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 01:53 AM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
Also, rewatched the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel (fuck off syfy) Dune mini-series. It's still so fucking good.

[Image: 51H2MFFFP6L.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-01-2017, 02:23 AM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
(02-01-2017 01:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  See Also: Pacific Rim

Quite.

That film is pretty much the opposite of my review, above. I went in expecting something badass (Guillermo del Toro!) and walked out like, "What the fuck did I just watch?"

I get pretty mad at the Hollywood butcheries of my beloved genre (including the "SyFy" channel, which is an insult to real sci-fi) because I feel it deserves to be taken seriously and those butcheries set us back, every time.

For instance, what the movies did to the excellent book Ender's Game. Or if you really want to get mad, go read Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers and then go watch the movie "based on" the book... you'll want to draw-and-quarter Paul Verhoeven. Angry

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 03:49 AM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 03:59 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
(02-01-2017 02:23 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 01:15 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  See Also: Pacific Rim

Quite.

That film is pretty much the opposite of my review, above. I went in expecting something badass (Guillermo del Toro!) and walked out like, "What the fuck did I just watch?"

I get pretty mad at the Hollywood butcheries of my beloved genre (including the "SyFy" channel, which is an insult to real sci-fi) because I feel it deserves to be taken seriously and those butcheries set us back, every time.

For instance, what the movies did to the excellent book Ender's Game. Or if you really want to get mad, go read Robert Heinlein's book Starship Troopers and then go watch the movie "based on" the book... you'll want to draw-and-quarter Paul Verhoeven. Angry

Gonna have to disagree with you man.

I love Pacific Rim, one of my all time favorites. It's far better than it has any right to be. It's Del Torro, who let's not forget directed Blade 2 and the Hellboy movies; the dude knows his way around a genre flick, but they're genre flicks all the same. It had such a stupidly awesome premise, giant piloted robots fighting giant monsters to save humanity from extinction. It doesn't waste your fucking time, the destruction of the Golden Gate bridge is the cold opening for the movie; and it gets in and out with it's tight narrative before it's worn out it's welcome. The film is gorgeous, and in both theme and casting, it's wonderfully optimistic and multicultural. Plus Mako Mori is quite possibly the new gold standard in empowered female protagonists. Idris Elba is badass (complete with his own Bill Pullman speech), Ron Perlman is typically over the top, and Charlie Day is fun as always. But to my point, at the very end, Mako and Raleigh don't kiss, they just smile and touch their foreheads together; honestly a much more touching display, which also makes sense within the world's own premise considering that they had now drifted multiple times (and thus they knew each other so much more intimately that such an outward display of affection simply wasn't needed).


Also, I love Starship Troopers, both the film and the book. The book is what it is, an old school big idea science fiction romp built around exploring a post-democracy hyper militarized society (one often critiqued as being pro-fascists) as humanity expands across the galaxy and comes into conflict with other alien races. But the movies is anything but, because it was never meant to be an adaptation of Heinlein's book. The script started out as an independent project, and was originally titled 'Bug Hunters'. During one of the revisions of a draft, someone working on it noticed a handful of superficial similarities between it and Heinlein's book. So they went about licensing the rights to the book, and changed even more things (the names of the characters, the protagonist being from Buenos Ares, etc.) to tie it more in line with the book. However once the project was attached to director Paul Verhoeven, who lest we forget directed some of the best genre movies to that point (Total Recall, Robocop); and yeah, the movie feels very much like Robocop. Verhoeven applied his same dark satirical take to the movie and it's script after trying to read through Heinlein's book, and coming out very much so on the 'this book promotes fascism' opinion.

So yeah, the book is great for what it is. The movie is also great for what it is, a grim satirical take down of the world in which the film inhabits; much like how Robocop satirizes the corporatism of it's world. Which given the fact that it was directed by the dude who directed Robocop makes all the sense in the world. Try watching both again, Verhoeven even used the same bits again, as the "would you like to know more?" propaganda interludes in Troopers are effectively the same thing he did with the commercial breaks in Robocop. Plus the screenplay was also by the guy who wrote Robocop; go figure.

Starship Troopers: One of the Most Misunderstood Movies Ever @ The Atlantic

When Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers hit theaters 16 years ago today, most American critics slammed it. In the New York Times, Janet Maslin panned the “crazed, lurid spectacle,” as featuring “raunchiness tailor-made for teen-age boys.” Jeff Vice, in the Deseret News, called it “a nonstop splatterfest so devoid of taste and logic that it makes even the most brainless summer blockbuster look intelligent.” Roger Ebert, who had praised the “pointed social satire” of Verhoeven’s Robocop, found the film “one-dimensional,” a trivial nothing “pitched at 11-year-old science-fiction fans.”

But those critics had missed the point. Starship Troopers is satire, a ruthlessly funny and keenly self-aware sendup of right-wing militarism. The fact that it was and continues to be taken at face value speaks to the very vapidity the movie skewers.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-01-2017, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 02-01-2017 09:37 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
I keep hearing that the book "promotes" fascism and militarism. Except that's not what the book was about. Heinlein does defend a government type that could be defined as fascism (not Nazism), in that one is not automatically born guaranteed the right to vote in that society-- but people miss that equal rights are for everyone, and do not change whether one is a citizen or a subject, and that any person is able to volunteer for service in order to achieve their franchise, and that it explicitly says only one of those forms of service is the military. The book is assuredly not a glorification of military service, but an explanation of how difficult service is, how awful war is, and why one would (or should) nevertheless volunteer and see it as a duty to do that in a free society. He has extensive discussions on that.

The movie may have started out as a side project (I've heard that before), but it is clearly Verhoeven's attempt to slam something he blatantly misunderstood, once he did read the book. Many of the characters are literally the exact opposite of their personalities in the book-- an example is Drill Sergeant Zimm, who deliberately and maliciously breaks the arm of one of the recruits who challenges him to a fistfight (after being invited to do so as part of their hand-to-hand combat training by the Sarge) just to show the troopers he's a big meanie they shouldn't fuck with... except in the book, the reason he breaks the guy's arm is because the guy is so big and so fast that he is better than the Sarge thought he would be, and it's an accidental break. He apologizes to the recruit and tells him that he was rushed and it was HIS fault, not the recruit's... then promises to show the recruit how to do the proper defensive move, once his arm has healed. Another recruit who is a martial artist immediately comes forward to fight the sergeant, and the sarge praises his abilities.

The more egregious violation of the character is where he throws a knife through a guy's hand, when the guy asks why they have to learn knife combat in a war that contains nuclear weaponry, telling the other recruits, "Because your enemy can't push a button to launch nukes when his hand is pinned to a wall!" (or some similarly stupid line). Except in the book, the exchange goes like this. A recruit named Hendricks asks:

“If we can use an H-bomb--and as you said it's no checker game; it's real, it's war and nobody is fooling around--isn't it sort of ridiculous to go crawling around in the weeds, throwing knives and maybe getting yourself killed . . . and even losing the war . . . when you've got a real weapon you can use to win? What's the point in a whole lot of men risking their lives with obsolete weapons when one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?'

[...]

Well, the question you asked is one that a sergeant isn't really qualified to answer . . . and one that you shouldn't ask me. You're supposed to know the answer before you join up. Or you should. Did your school have a course in History and Moral Philosophy?'

What? Sure--yes, sir.'

Then you've heard the answer. But I'll give you my own--unofficial--views on it. If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cuts its head off?'

Why . . . no, sir!'

Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy with an H-Bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”


They took that guy, who I would say is downright philosophical for a soldier, and turned him into a bloodthirsty, cruel psychopath. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how people can write off Heinlein as being pro-fascist and that movie as being anything but a deliberate twisting of everything in that book.

Edit to Add: I note in the article it says that the Arachnids (the "bugs") are just minding their business when humans pick a fight with them, but the movie bugs aren't as bright as the bugs in the book, where the Arachnids have their own starships, nuclear weapons, etc. Heinlein's book actually does hint that humans are equally to blame for their militarism and jingoism, and that the soldiers are the unfortunate victims of political decisions by people who didn't really need to pick a fight in the first place. He says that it's about the two biggest kids on the block picking a fight with one another just to see who can come out on top-- it's a criticism by Heinlein, himself a veteran, of imperialism. The book is about WW2 and the Cold War. But, since we live in a world in which imperialism is a fact, and soldiers will be called to fight for their politicians' decisions, it's important for people to really think about why one should (or should not) volunteer to fight for such a system. If you criticize the book as militaristic, then you are criticizing every person currently or formerly in the US military. Including me. Including Yakherder. Including quite a few of us who intelligently and thoughtfully volunteered ourselves for that service.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
02-01-2017, 11:26 AM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
(02-01-2017 01:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, rewatched the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel (fuck off syfy) Dune mini-series. It's still so fucking good.

[Image: 51H2MFFFP6L.jpg]

The follow up Children of Dune is even more amazing.

[Image: Children_of_Dune_1.jpg]

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
02-01-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
(02-01-2017 09:20 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I keep hearing that the book "promotes" fascism and militarism. Except that's not what the book was about. Heinlein does defend a government type that could be defined as fascism (not Nazism), in that one is not automatically born guaranteed the right to vote in that society-- but people miss that equal rights are for everyone, and do not change whether one is a citizen or a subject, and that any person is able to volunteer for service in order to achieve their franchise, and that it explicitly says only one of those forms of service is the military. The book is assuredly not a glorification of military service, but an explanation of how difficult service is, how awful war is, and why one would (or should) nevertheless volunteer and see it as a duty to do that in a free society. He has extensive discussions on that.

The movie may have started out as a side project (I've heard that before), but it is clearly Verhoeven's attempt to slam something he blatantly misunderstood, once he did read the book. Many of the characters are literally the exact opposite of their personalities in the book-- an example is Drill Sergeant Zimm, who deliberately and maliciously breaks the arm of one of the recruits who challenges him to a fistfight (after being invited to do so as part of their hand-to-hand combat training by the Sarge) just to show the troopers he's a big meanie they shouldn't fuck with... except in the book, the reason he breaks the guy's arm is because the guy is so big and so fast that he is better than the Sarge thought he would be, and it's an accidental break. He apologizes to the recruit and tells him that he was rushed and it was HIS fault, not the recruit's... then promises to show the recruit how to do the proper defensive move, once his arm has healed. Another recruit who is a martial artist immediately comes forward to fight the sergeant, and the sarge praises his abilities.

The more egregious violation of the character is where he throws a knife through a guy's hand, when the guy asks why they have to learn knife combat in a war that contains nuclear weaponry, telling the other recruits, "Because your enemy can't push a button to launch nukes when his hand is pinned to a wall!" (or some similarly stupid line). Except in the book, the exchange goes like this. A recruit named Hendricks asks:

“If we can use an H-bomb--and as you said it's no checker game; it's real, it's war and nobody is fooling around--isn't it sort of ridiculous to go crawling around in the weeds, throwing knives and maybe getting yourself killed . . . and even losing the war . . . when you've got a real weapon you can use to win? What's the point in a whole lot of men risking their lives with obsolete weapons when one professor type can do so much more just by pushing a button?'

[...]

Well, the question you asked is one that a sergeant isn't really qualified to answer . . . and one that you shouldn't ask me. You're supposed to know the answer before you join up. Or you should. Did your school have a course in History and Moral Philosophy?'

What? Sure--yes, sir.'

Then you've heard the answer. But I'll give you my own--unofficial--views on it. If you wanted to teach a baby a lesson, would you cuts its head off?'

Why . . . no, sir!'

Of course not. You'd paddle it. There can be circumstances when it's just as foolish to hit an enemy with an H-Bomb as it would be to spank a baby with an ax. War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government's decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him . . . but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing . . . but controlled and purposeful violence. But it's not your business or mine to decide the purpose of the control. It's never a soldier's business to decide when or where or how--or why--he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people--"older and wiser heads," as they say--supply the control. Which is as it should be. That's the best answer I can give you. If it doesn't satisfy you, I'll get you a chit to go talk to the regimental commander. If he can't convince you--then go home and be a civilian! Because in that case you will certainly never make a soldier.”


They took that guy, who I would say is downright philosophical for a soldier, and turned him into a bloodthirsty, cruel psychopath. I'm sorry, but I just can't understand how people can write off Heinlein as being pro-fascist and that movie as being anything but a deliberate twisting of everything in that book.

Edit to Add: I note in the article it says that the Arachnids (the "bugs") are just minding their business when humans pick a fight with them, but the movie bugs aren't as bright as the bugs in the book, where the Arachnids have their own starships, nuclear weapons, etc. Heinlein's book actually does hint that humans are equally to blame for their militarism and jingoism, and that the soldiers are the unfortunate victims of political decisions by people who didn't really need to pick a fight in the first place. He says that it's about the two biggest kids on the block picking a fight with one another just to see who can come out on top-- it's a criticism by Heinlein, himself a veteran, of imperialism. The book is about WW2 and the Cold War. But, since we live in a world in which imperialism is a fact, and soldiers will be called to fight for their politicians' decisions, it's important for people to really think about why one should (or should not) volunteer to fight for such a system. If you criticize the book as militaristic, then you are criticizing every person currently or formerly in the US military. Including me. Including Yakherder. Including quite a few of us who intelligently and thoughtfully volunteered ourselves for that service.


I hear ya'. I still enjoy both, just for very different reasons.

Still, Pacific Rim is fucking amazing and you're a fool if you think otherwise. Tongue

[Image: d0ed65ccf15883419e585ab52062da68.gif]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-01-2017, 01:15 PM
RE: Rate the Last Film You've Seen
(02-01-2017 11:26 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(02-01-2017 01:53 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, rewatched the 2000 Sci-Fi Channel (fuck off syfy) Dune mini-series. It's still so fucking good.

[Image: 51H2MFFFP6L.jpg]

The follow up Children of Dune is even more amazing.

[Image: Children_of_Dune_1.jpg]

Son of a bitch, that's fuckin' James McAvoy!? He's Leto Atreides II!

[Image: latest?cb=20150405091122]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: