1056 replies to this topic

[randomizer]

I am yet to see Australia, even though I am Australian. I didn't think much of the trailers so didn't go to see it in the cinemas. Maybe I'll hire it out some time in the near future.

[Vlad Yvhv]

The Thing: A+
Good, solid story. Strong chars. Flamethrowers. Explosions. And the most badass of all alien species. It doesn't lay eggs in you. It doesn't hunt you down with hightech stuff. It doesn't chase you through poorly lit corridors. And above all else, it doesn't have a glowing finger and want to be your friend... It becomes your friends, your family, your pet, your coworkers, or anyone else you're in contact with and then it tries to become you. Conventional weapons only piss it off. Fire only kills its outer layers, leaving its innards alive. Explosives only scatter its parts, turning each of them into a separate creature. Even a pool of its blood is a creature in and of itself. It can shift to utilize any part of any creature it's come into contact with before to adapt to whatever situation it's in. And it only takes one live cell from it to take over your body...

[randomizer]

"Knowing" suprisingly good sci-fi thriller from the director of "Dark City", "I Robot" and "The Crow".

You liked Knowing? What did you find good about it? I found it too ridiculous by the end to like it that much.

[Kain Blackwood]

I liked "Knowing," too (liked it well enough, anyway). It played out more like a good science fiction short story more than anything else, but by that merit I probably would have enjoyed reading such a story more than this film. I'm always partial to Nicholas Cage and I enjoyed the way that it slowly changed from disaster/suspense to sci-fi, but the direction fell flat in a lot of ways, not the least of which in the child characters and the build-up to the action scenes.

All in all, I give it a solid B: not my favorite Nick Cage movie, but definitely better than some of his other recent fare. (KILLING ME WON'T BRING BACK YOUR HONEY!!)

The latest movie I saw, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," gets a solid A+ (it's Indiana Jones Classic, what more needs to be said?). Personally, my favorite of the series primarily for the chemistry between Ford and Connery.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I liked "Knowing," too (liked it well enough, anyway). It played out more like a good science fiction short story more than anything else, but by that merit I probably would have enjoyed reading such a story more than this film. I'm always partial to Nicholas Cage and I enjoyed the way that it slowly changed from disaster/suspense to sci-fi, but the direction fell flat in a lot of ways, not the least of which in the child characters and the build-up to the action scenes.

All in all, I give it a solid B: not my favorite Nick Cage movie, but definitely better than some of his other recent fare. (KILLING ME WON'T BRING BACK YOUR HONEY!!)

The latest movie I saw, "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," gets a solid A+ (it's Indiana Jones Classic, what more needs to be said?). Personally, my favorite of the series primarily for the chemistry between Ford and Connery.

Knowing? *sigh* Never mind.

I have to agree with you on The Last Crusade. Although I'd probably give it more of an A instead of an A+ (not counting the father/son relationship, many of the supporting characters were uncharacteristically too comical than established in the past). The father/son relationship is fun to see. The two actors made it work, despite the fact that Sean Connery is only 10 years older than Harrison Ford.

My personal favorite Indy Jones would be Raiders of the Lost Ark, mainly because it was one of the first of its breed. We haven't seen action/adventure films like Indiana Jones before or since (even though National Treasure tried to be like one.)

The Last Crusade: A
*****

Raiders of the Lost Ark: A+
*****

[Velvet D'Coolette]

The Boat That Rocked: A+

The Boat That Rocked follows the events of a (possibly real, possibly fictional, I'm not sure and can't be arsed to research at the moment) pirate radio ship in the mid 60's. The film was over 2 hours, so a bit of an epic, but this didn't let it down at all; there was plenty to keep me interested.

There is something of a sexual theme running through the story, as all except one of the ship inhabitants are male and the only woman on board is gay, so threaded into the day-to-day running of a 24/7 rock and pop radio station is the constant scheming to get unattached and uninhibited girls onto the ship. Nothing particularly graphic happens though; the rudest bit showed a room full of naked girls.

Radio Rock (as the ship is named) is being hunted down by the government, who don't like this immoral radio station one bit. Although at first the station isn't breaking any laws, they formulate a law for it to break, and we follow Twatt, the agent charged with creating this law, as he does so.

There is a slightly unreal aspect to the story, due to a mild comedic bent and with the cast being a little more glamorous than might be feasable, but the humour fits well with the good nature of the film, and the glamour doesn't get out of hand due to this being a British film, and on the whole, it keeps its feet on the ground.

I'm not a child of the 60's; regrettably, I was born in the 80's instead, a far less fun time. Although I'm not usually a fan of pop music, this film really put a lot of 60's music in context for me and showed me the sense of excitement it generated. The occasional flicker of uber-cool beatnick life added to this.

All together, the film was a fantastic, feel-good piece that I hope airs outside of the UK - everyone deserves to see a fun film like this!

[Dakota Bob]

Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: C+

An alright movie, a decent cast (Alan Rickman giving a great performance) infact there is only one thing I really think is wrong with this film that brought down the score.

KEVIN COSTNER? as Robin Hood? seriously? you couldn't have found a real fucking englishman to play the character? it's not as if there is a shortage of them you know.

[Velvet D'Coolette]

KEVIN COSTNER? as Robin Hood? seriously? you couldn't have found a real fucking englishman to play the character? it's not as if there is a shortage of them you know.

Oh, there's plenty of us, it's just that we're all evil. You can't have an evil Robin Hood, you know.

[Ratty Randnums]

KEVIN COSTNER? as Robin Hood? seriously? you couldn't have found a real fucking englishman to play the character? it's not as if there is a shortage of them you know.

Oh, there's plenty of us, it's just that we're all evil. You can't have an evil Robin Hood, you know.

Not necessarily so though you have gotten that reputation.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Star Trek (2009)

I'll start off with this
[spoiler:l4on1bn5]Star Trek is NOT a prequel. It is a SEQUEL. During an accidental destruction of a planet, Spock and a Romulan battle ship are thrust back in time 150 years to the point where the USS Enterprise was on her maiden voyage. Captian Nero of the Romulan vessel sets out to destroy the Federation with it's super advanced battle ship compared to the technology of 150 years past.[/spoiler]

The most complaints from loyal "Trekkies" is that the movie doesn't carry the "spirit" of the original canon. The reasons being that the film was actually enjoyable to watch and the performances were not nearly as stale or dry as they should be. Well, I don't know about that, but....

I did very much enjoy Star Trek.

The film takes place before the 5 year mission to "Boldly go where no man has gone before", not the beginning of the 5 year mission (as was mentioned by some folk). As is typical for a film built like a prequel, the characters start off all opposite of the way we know then to be, and during the course of some very dramatic and life-threatening events are shaped and molded into the strong characters we've seen in the early Star Trek series (yes, this includes Spock's character arc as well ).

To say that the performances were better than that of the the original cast would be expected. But the performances here were actually pretty good. Nothing Oscar worthy, but the actors were able to allow you sympathize with them by carrying the necessary emotions very well.

And the way the script was written, you could tell that they wanted you to hear the characters say "I'm givin' it all she's got!" or "I'm a doctor, not a physicist!" for the first time. Major enjoyment there.

Now, the script doesn't have the commentary if humanity that Gene Roddenberry was always fond of implementing in his Star Trek episodes, but seeing as how we're not exploring on that 5 year mission yet, we can hold off on that for a while. And to say there was a lack of character development compared to the series is unfair since there is only 2 hours to do it here, not 3 years worth of one-hour-episodes. The characters were developed thoroughly enough for a 2-hour movie.

And there was one dialogue scene where they went a little too "Bourne Ultimatum" with the camera. I found it distracting. And some would say that they might have used the camera-spinning-around-the-table-as-they-talk a little too much, but I thought it added the energy allowed for some of the tense parts of the film.

Overall:
A-
*****

Oh, and for those of you who are J.J. Abrams fans, Nyota Uhura is offered a "Slusho" in a bar towards the beginning of the movie.

[Jman1236]

Yeah I saw Star Trek earlier this evening, way better than I expected. You also forgot to mention that it has one of the best red shirt deaths in Star Trek history(well the guy was wearing red when he died).

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Yeah I saw Star Trek earlier this evening, way better than I expected. You also forgot to mention that it has one of the best red shirt deaths in Star Trek history(well the guy was wearing red when he died).

Ah. True. Although, whereas I am aware of the "Curse of the Red Shirt" deal, I wasn't aware of the character in the movie wearing red when he died. And they call me a film student.

[An7imatt3r]

So basically if I am understanding this right, someone finally realized that if you follow the archetypal hero/journey path you can make a good movie? Everyone always compares things to star wars with the whole life changing events thing (you didn't but just in general), but starwars was just one of the first movies to use that. I am going to see this either tonight or tomorrow, can't wait.

[Ratty Randnums]

So basically if I am understanding this right, someone finally realized that if you follow the archetypal hero/journey path you can make a good movie? Everyone always compares things to star wars with the whole life changing events thing (you didn't but just in general), but starwars was just one of the first movies to use that. I am going to see this either tonight or tomorrow, can't wait.

Well, that works in a mythalogical setting, it's somehow satisfying to people, always has been. And since Science Fiction is basically the mythology that resonates most with people in our time, or at least millions of them, it's natural that it works there.
George Lucas was very influcneced (he rewrote his Star Wars script based on it as I recall) by Joseph Campbell's seminal "The Hero With a Thousand Faces". More here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cam ... ar_culture

[An7imatt3r]

George Lucas was very influcneced (he rewrote his Star Wars script based on it as I recall) by Joseph Campbell's seminal "The Hero With a Thousand Faces". More here-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cam ... ar_culture

Yeah I took a whole class on it high school, really fun stuff actually. Yeah and defiantly your right it does have to be a scifi/fiction/fantasy setting for it to work.

[Chaosmaster8753]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: B-
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: B+
Star Trek: B+

[Jason Ryan]

Flight 666, the Iron Maiden doco movie (which had limited runs in cinemas here in Australia) was a really good watch. It shows the titular bands tour of the world in 2008 and the hijinks they get up to.

It's quite jarring to hear the Aussie accents contrasted against other countries, thought the red haired lass had me loling when she said "It's a good excuse to FARKIN' HEADBANG!"

Oh right, a score. Ten being the highest, one being the lowest, and five being average, I give this film... a nine.

[Vlad Yvhv]

Videodrome. C+. Though it's far from good, it's also way better than a lot of the movies my insomnia has occasionally led to to watch.